Nominal Index [Citation 301 – 623]Bina Saxena w/o Late Ravendra Kumar Saxena v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 301Hemant Dhirajlal Banker v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 302CIT v. M/s Citicorp Investment Bank 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 303Sanjay Dangi v. UoI 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 304Divya Ashok Pahuja v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 305Dhaneshwar Rajak S/o Gula Rajak and Anr....
Nominal Index [Citation 301 – 623]
Bina Saxena w/o Late Ravendra Kumar Saxena v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 301
Hemant Dhirajlal Banker v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 302
CIT v. M/s Citicorp Investment Bank 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 303
Sanjay Dangi v. UoI 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 304
Divya Ashok Pahuja v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 305
Dhaneshwar Rajak S/o Gula Rajak and Anr. v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 306
Gautam Shantilal Daima v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 307
Gautam Hari Singhania v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 308
Pratibha Prakash Almast and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 309
Girish Vinodchandra Dhruva and Ors. v. Neena Paresh Shah and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 310
Arbaza Alimentos Ltd v. MAC Impex and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 311
Oerlikon Balzers Coating India v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 312
PVR Ltd. v. M/S Proetus Ventures LLP and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 313
XXX vs State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 314
State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Sudhir Bhagwat Kalekar 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 315
Bharat Parihar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 316
Lakhan Pralhad Misal v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 317
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 318
SLS Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 319
The Commissioner of Income International Taxation-1 v. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerce Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 320
Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Colgate Palmolive Marketing SDN BHD 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 321
Ronak Industries v. Assistant Commissioner 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 322
Sunlight Cable Industries v. The Commissioner of Customs 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 323
Gyan SP Developers LLP v. Tahsildar 1 (Special Class), SRA and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 324
Sagar Chandramauli Ponnala v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 325
Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 326
Vishal Kanhaiyalal Shrimali v. Union Territory of Daman and Diu 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 327
Vijay S/o. Harinarayan Choudhary v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 328
Dr. Sandeep S/o Ashokrao Ragade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 329
Jay Pramod Rikame and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 330
Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle – 27(3) and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 331
Dr. Jaysiddheshwar Shivacharya Mahaswamiji v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 332
Media Net Software Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 333
Nawab Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 334
Rohit Manohar Joshi and Ors. v. Tree Authority Thane Municipal Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 335
Ashik Ramjan Ansari v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 336
Mukand Limited v. The Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 337
Jumma Masjid Trust Committee v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 338
Abbott India Limited v. Dipak s/o Arunrao Deshmukh 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 339
Aslam Salim Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 340
Shaila Jitendra Kanthe v. Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 341
Melwyn Isidore Fernandes and Others vs State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 342
Usha Eswar v. Rajeshwari Menon 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 343
Shramik Janta Sangh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 344
Mukand Limited v. The Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 345
PCIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 346
Indus Towers Ltd., Pune (Formerly, Bharti Infratel Ltd., Pune) v. Grampanchayat, Chikhalhol, Tal. Khanapur, Dist. Sangli and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 347
Santosh Pandurang Parte v. Amar Bahadur Maurya and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 348
Kishor Shivdas Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 349
Ramchandra Maruti Yedage v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 350
Latif Yusuf Manikkoth v. Board of Directors of the Bank of Baroda and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 351
Hanuman S/o Dattarao Karkar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 352
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar and Anr. v. Suraiyya Rafik Khalifa and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 353
The Goa Foundation v. State of Goa and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 354
Rubeena Shaheen v. Haj Committee of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 355
Prameya Welfare Foundation v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 356
Hanumant Ashok Shinde v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 357
Madhani Prakash Engineers JV v. UoI 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 358
Jayshree @ Pushpa v. Satyendra s/o Shivram Jindam 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 359
Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Swastik Associates & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 360
Bablu Jumman Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 361
JEM Exporter v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 362
Coventry Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 363
Vinayak Ukharam Chavhan v. Divisional Joint Registrar and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 364
Marathwada Legal and General Education Society, Aurangabad v. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 365
Shiney Suraj Ahuja v. State of Maha & others 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 366
Ruju R. Thakker v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 367
Mahaveer Realities & Ors. vs Shirish J. Shah 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 368
Cummins India Limited v. ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 369
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 370
Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 371
Sushila Gordhandas Parikh v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 372
Olga Rosnina v. Foreigners Regional Registration Office, Goa and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 373
Suvarna Ratnakar Taras v. Mangalprabhat Lodha 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 374
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 375
Govind Poslya Gavit v. The Competent Authority 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 376
Abhay Shamsundar Kurundkar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 377
Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 378
Khairunisa Sheikh Chand v. Chandrashekhar Daulatrao Chincholkar & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 379
Asha Shivaji More v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 380
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 381
Prakash Madhukarrao Desai v. Dattatraya Sheshrao Desai 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 382
Archbishop Patriarch Of Goa Rev. Fr. Filipe Neri Ferrao v. State Information Commission 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 383
Shamsher Ahmed Shaikh & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 384
Rahul S/o Sahdev Lokhande and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 385
Sudhir Dhar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 386
Ranjeet Sampatrao Raskar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 387
Sangita Vilas Kiwade v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 388
Ashim Kumar Bagchi v. Balaji Telefilms Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 389
State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Badrinarayan Gote 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 390
Jayendra Narandas Bhatia v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 391
Vijay Choudhary v. state of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 392
Astec LifeSciences Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 393
UPL Limited v. UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 394
Mohan Yeshwant Padawe & Ors v. State Of Maharashtra & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 395
Kumar Kunal v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 396
Heena Afrin Huzaifa Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 397
Ankiti Bose v. Mahesh Murthy and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 398
Sandeep Pandurang Patil v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 399
ARG Outlier Media Private Limited v. Rayadu Vision Media Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 400
Commissioner, Kolhapur Mahanagarpalika v. Shashikala Vijay Bhore 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 401
Sanjay Katkar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 402
The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 403
Dattaprasad Kamat v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 404
Ajay Uddhav Narhe & Anr. v. Uttam Patil, Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 405
22Light v. OESPL Pvt Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 406
Memon Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Prema Amarlal Gera & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 407
Uday Chari v. State of Goa and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 408
Oberoi Mega Entertainment LLP and Anr. v. Sanjay Saha and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 409
Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxation 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 410
Deepak Jagdev v. Eknath Shinde and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 411
Sachin D. Basare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 412
Ajay Uddhav Narhe & Anr. v. Uttam Patil, Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 413
Darshana Anand Damle v. DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 414
Shreeji Realty v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 415
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 416
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 417
Rajendrakumar Vishwanath Trivedi v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 418
Chanda Ram Shivsharan v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 419
Nisargadeep Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 420
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Triller Inc. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 421
Rashmi Shukla v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 422
Ravindra Waikar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 423
Sonali Ashok Tandle v. Ranka Lifestyle Ventures and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 424
Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 425
Siemens Financial Services Pvt Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 426
Iqra Maqsood Ahmed Ansari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 427
Union of India and Anr. v. Umraobi W/o Saiyed Munir and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 428
Shri Durga Parmeshwari Seva Mandal & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 429
Ashwin Bharat Khater v. Urvashi Bharat Khater 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 430
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 431
Rodu Bhaga Wagh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 432
Govandi New Sangam Welfare Society v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 433
Anupam Mittal v. People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 434
Registrar Judicial, High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 435
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 436
Faizal Hasamali Mirza @ Kasib v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 437
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 438
State of Maharashtra v. Baburao Ukandu Sangerao 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 439
M v. Navi Municipal Corporation and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 440
Suresh Kevalram Khemani & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Unit-I (Eo-1) & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 441
Eversmile Construction Company Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 442
Undercarriage and Tractor Parts Pvt. Ltd. v. DRP 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 443
G. Chandrashekharan Shivam And Ors. v. Rajkumar Agarwal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 444
Shivraj Gorakh Satpute v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 445
Ashraf Chitalwala v. DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 446
Poonam Basak v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 447
Navigns Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Sameer Pandharinath Khandekar and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 448
South Port Limited v. State of Goa 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 449
Mehul Choksi v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 450
Mahesh Sitaram Raut v. National Investigation Agency 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 451
Hemant Dinkar Kandlur v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 452
Milind Dashrath Narvekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 453
Jigna Jitendra Vora v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 454
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sou. Jyoti Vithoba Nahire 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 455
Pragati Pre Fab India Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 456
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 457
SNV Aviation Pvt. Ltd. v. Capt. Gareema Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 458
John Cockerill India Limited v. Sanjay Kamalakar Navare 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 459
Shishirkumar Gopalchandra Padhy v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 460
Guljama Shah Jahir Shah v. Shri Sadguru Kaka Stone Crusher 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 461
Manoj Agarwal and Anr. v. Fashion TV Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 462
ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 463
Wynk Ltd. v. Tips Industries Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 464
Dolby Builders Private Ltd. and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 465
Maharashtra Rajya Apang Karmachari Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 466
Sunil s/o Fattesing Sable v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 467
State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Anil Kacharu Shinde 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 468
Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 469
Dinanath Manik Katkar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 470
Vaibhav Subhash Raut v. State of Maharashtra (ATS) 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 471
Hatim Fidaali Rajkotwala and Anr. v. Land Acquisition Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 472
Dr. Kamal Chandra Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 473
Ramkali Dayakisan Gupta & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 474
Bachpan Bachao Andolan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 475
Dr. Mahendra Vilas Phalke And Ors vs State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 476
Mohammed Atiq Ibrahim Ansari v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 477
Lalit S/o Nandlal Bais v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 478
ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 479
Ravindra Dattaram Waikar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 480
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 481
Mukesh Rajaram Chaudhari v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 482
Sandip Sundarrao Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 483
Bhushan s/o. Sangappa Chaudhari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 484
Satyaseelan Kuttappan v. PP Sudhakaran and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 485
Play Games 24X7 Pvt. Ltd. Vs Loran Leasing And Infotech Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 486
Parvi Ashish Chakravarti v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 457
Baramati Agro Ltd. v. Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 488
Faaiz Anwar Qureshi v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 489
Nilesh s/o Ajinath Udmale, v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 490
Dr. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 491
Aarti w/o Santosh Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 492
Swiss Re Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 493
Film Farm India Pvt Ltd v. ALT Digital Media Entertainment Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 494
Dr. P. Varavara Rao v. National Investigation Agency and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 495
Indumati Borse v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 496
Sameer Baijanath Joshi v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 497
Zakir Yusuf Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 498
M/s. Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt Ltd v. Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 499
Partha Sarathy Sarkar v Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 500
Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 501
Appasaheb Pandurang Yadav (Deceased) Through his legal heir v. Appasaheb Virupaksh Tandale 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 502
Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 503
Sanjay Nathmal Jain v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 504
Sunil Shishupal Nayak v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 505
Anandraj Manikam v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 506
Nikhil Ashokrao Waghmare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 507
Manik Chandru Deokar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 508
Matrix Publicities and Media India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 16(1), Mumbai & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 509
Bapu Bajarang Patil v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 510
Chandralok People Welfare Association v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 511
Kiran P. Pawar v. Bata India Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 512
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 513
Abhishek Pictures v. Abhishek Agarwal Arts LLP 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 514
Amar S. Mulchandani v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 515
Municipal Commissioner Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Ashish Laxman Chavan 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 516
Meerabai W/o Dnyaneshwar Chatare v. Returning Officer to the Election 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 517
Azizur Rehman Gulam v. Radio Restaurant 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 518
Swashray Co-op. Housing Society Ltd v. Shanti Enterprises 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 519
Dnyaneshwar Eknath Gulhane v. Vinod Ramchandra Lokhande 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 520
National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 521
Naresh Goyal v. Directorate of Enforcement 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 522
Vodafone Idea Limited v. CPC 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 523
Mangal Ramsurat Singh v. State Of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 524
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 525
Hasmukh Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 526
Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 527
High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own Motion v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 528
Sheezan Mohd. Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 529
Ramona Pinto v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 530
Diversey India Hygiene Private Limited v. ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 531
Dr. Vijay Uma Shankar Mishra v. Commissioner, MCGM and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 532
Danish Ali Jamaluddin Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 533
Chandar Mahadev Naik v. Income Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 534
V Sridharan v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 535
Ganesh Ramesh Chavan v. Income Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 536
Ramona Pinto v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 537
Ramona Pinto v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 538
Prestige Estate Projects Ltd v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 539
Satya Prakash Choudhry v. Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 540
M/s Singh Automobiles v. Principal Secretary, Ministry of Energy & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 541
Anil Goel v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 542
ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 543
Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport v. BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 544
Sameer Lawate v. State of Maharashtra and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 545
DCW Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 546
Savita Shrimant Ghule v. Sangita Bibhishan Sanap & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 547
AjitSingh Ghorpade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 548
Rohit s/o Chandrakant Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 549
L&T Finance Limited v. Diamond Projects Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 550
Anandrao G Pawar v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 551
Vishwas S/o Pitambar Patil v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 552
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation v. UoI 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 553
Shonali Kedar Dighe v. Ashita Tham and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 554
Anuradha Kapoor and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 555
Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. SE Oil Products Pvt Ltd. & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 556
High Court On Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 557
Ashok Dayabhai Shah And Ors. v. Securities And Exchange Board of India And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 558
Tribhuvansing Raghunath Yadav v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 559
Shantapa alias Shantesh S. Kalasgond v. M/s. Anna 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 560
Madgavkar Salvage v. Bergen Offshore Logistics Pvt Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 561
Mataji Educational Institution and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 562
Sunil Achyutrao Thete v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 563
Peoples Education Society Thane v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 564
Harish B. Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 565
Ashok Bhikanrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 566
Aarti Shailesh Shah v. Satish Vasant Dharukkar & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 567
Serum Institute of India Private Limited v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 568
Sadanand Gangaram Kadam v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom)
TV Patel Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 570
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 571
Mustansir Barma v. Executive Engineer A ward & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 572
Nikhil H Malkan v. Standard Chartered Investment and Loans (India) Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 573
M/s. Siddhivinayak Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 574
Manisha G. Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 575
Mohammed Farooq Mohamemed Hanif Shaikh @ Farooqe Shaikh v. The Deputy Director & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 576
Dadaso Balaso Awad and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 577
Nita Narendra Nadgouda v. M/s. Garuda Carriers and Shipping (P) Ltd. and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 578
High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own Motion v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 579
High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own Motion v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 580
Nutan Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 581
Shaila Madhukar Gore and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 582
Ajay Mahasukhlal Shah v. Chandrakant Babulal Shah and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 583
Hitachi Astemo Fie Pvt. Ltd. v. Nirajkumar Prabhakarrao Kadu 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 584
Sughosh Joshi v. ECI and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 585
Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Jaipur IPL Cricket Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 586
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lauretta Shashi Mogale and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 587
Tribhuvansingh Raghunath Yadav v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 588
Alka Bhausaheb Bhad v. Bhausaheb Ramrao Bhad 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 589
Maharashtra Eastern Grid Power Transmission Company Ltd. v. Collector of Buldhana and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 590
Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 591
Shreem Electric Limited v. Transformers and Rectifers India Ltd. and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 592
Bank of India v. M/s. Maruti Civil Works 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 593
Manya Vejju v. Sapna Bhog 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 594
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nayajoddin Nijamuddin and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 595
Dr. Sublendu Prakash Diwakar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 596
Gautam P Navlakha v. National Investigating Agency 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 597
Atos India Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 598
Isha Exim v. UoI 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 599
Jahid alias Javed Liyakat Ansari v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 600
Aniket s/o Shahadev Labade v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 601
Parvej Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 602
Leyla Mohmoodi v. Additional Commissioner of Customs 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 603
Akshay Ashok Chaudhari and Ors. v. Government of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 604
Harjinder Kaur v. The Foreigner Regional Registration Office & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 605
Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Kaamakazi Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 606
Gemini Developers v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 607
Arti Rajesh Karangutkar v. Anna Rocky Fernandes and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 608
Chintan Vidyasagar Upadhyay v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 609
Tata Motors Finance Solutions Ltd v. Naushad Khan 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 610
Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani v. Directorate Of Enforcement 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 611
Rajinder Kaur Jaspal Singh Layal v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 612
Marico Limited v. KLF Nirmal Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 613
Tohid Rehman Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 614
Nitin Shivdas Satpute v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 615
Shailesh Ranka and Ors v. Windsor Machines Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 616
K Raj & Company & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 617
Deepak Sitaram Modhe v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 618
Sitara Anil Sharma v. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra, Mumbai & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 619
Mohammed Ejaj Shaikh Ismail v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 621
Fresenisu Kabi Oncology Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 622
Gurudas Balasaheb Raut And Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 623
Reports/Judgments
Central Government Pensioner Not Entitled To Medical Reimbursement Beyond CGHS Rates When No Referral Memo Obtained: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Bina Saxena w/o Late Ravendra Kumar Saxena v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 301
The Bombay High Court held that a retired central government employee, who did not obtain prior approval for treatment, is not entitled to medical reimbursement above Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) rates.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sandeep V Marne dismissed a widow's writ petition seeking reimbursement for the entire medical expenses incurred in her pensioner husband's treatment.
The court relied on office memorandum dated October 5, 2016 issued by the Central Ministry of Health and Family Welfare regarding the reimbursement/permissions/ex-post facto approval in respect of pensioner CGHS beneficiaries. Clause (ii) of the memorandum provides that the of reimbursement for treatment without prior approval will be restricted to CGHS rates or actual expenditure, whichever is lower.
The court noted that the petitioner did not show any administrative instruction or rule providing that any amount over CGHS rates can be reimbursed and upheld the tribunal's order.
Case Title: Hemant Dhirajlal Banker v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 302
Threatening someone to make him give up his demand for repayment of his money does not amount to extortion, the Bombay High Court held while quashing an extortion case by Kailash Agarwal, owner of the Avighna Group, against Worli businessman Hemant Banker. Agarwal had alleged that gangster Vijay Shetty threatened him on the behest of Hemant or his son Rupin Banker.
The court observed that such a threat is prima facie criminal intimidation, but as Banker was not the one who actually made the alleged threats, no offence is prima facie made out against him.
Capital Gain To Be Taxed In Singapore: Bombay High Court Allows Capital Gains Exemption To FII
Case Title: CIT v. M/s Citicorp Investment Bank
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 303
The Bombay High Court granted the capital gains exemption to Foreign Institutional Investors (FII).
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that Singapore authorities have themselves certified that the capital gain income would be brought to tax in Singapore without reference to the amount remitted or received in Singapore. The AO could not have come to a conclusion otherwise.
The assessee is registered as a Foreign Institutional Investor (FII) in the debt segment with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The assessee has been investing in debt securities in India during the year in consideration, which is A.Y. 2010–2011. The assessee filed its return of income, declaring a total income of Rs. 33,99,75,350. In its return, the assessee declared a capital gain on the sale of debt instruments and claimed exemption under Article 13(4) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
Case Title: Sanjay Dangi v. UoI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 304
The Bombay High Court imposed an Rs. 50,000 cost for a last-minute application for a stay on Look Out Circulars (LOCs) to travel abroad; however, the interim stay was granted on an LOC issued at the instance of the CBI.
The bench of Justice G.S. Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that the parties seeking to stay on any Look Out Circular (LOC) are required to apply to the Court in good time and not attempt to pressurize the Courts.
The court, while expressing its displeasure, stated, "We have previously expressed our displeasure at the manner in which these Applications are being made, with Applicants finalizing their itineraries even before they seek leave of the Court. This is not a question of whether or not there is a right that is violated. In all these applications, it seems that Courts are more or less being taken for granted, that permissions will follow and that matters, and, more importantly, that Applications will be taken up on a priority basis and even out of turn to permit the Applicants to keep to their itineraries. This is not acceptable."
Case Title: Divya Ashok Pahuja v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 305
The Bombay High Court granted bail to ex-model Divya Pahuja, a prime accused in the alleged fake encounter of gangster Sandeep Gadholi in 2016.
Pahuja, who is booked for conspiracy along with policemen from Haryana is alleged to have provided Gadholi's whereabouts that led to his death. She was with him at the time of the incident.
Justice PD Naik considered Pahuja's prolonged incarceration of seven years and the fact that she was only 18 when arrested, to grant bail.
Case Title: Dhaneshwar Rajak S/o Gula Rajak and Anr. v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 306
The Bombay High Court awarded compensation to parents of a train accident victim who had gotten out of his train due to fire in the bogie and died after getting hit by another train on the adjacent track.
Justice MS Jawalkar of the Nagpur bench observed that the deceased and other passengers would not have had to get down from the train if not for the fire and smoke in the bogie.
The court further observed that there is no condition in section 124-A (compensation on account of untoward incident) of the Railways Act, 1989 that only a person who falls down from a train, and not a person standing on the track, can claim compensation.
Case Title: Gautam Shantilal Daima v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 307
The Bombay High Court held that externing authority under the Maharashtra Police Act does not have any power to direct the police to approach the executive magistrate for a show cause notice under section 110 (security for good behaviour from habitual offenders) of the CrPC against a person.
Justice Sarang V Kotwal observed that once process is issued against a person under section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, no other order except an externment order or an order dropping externment proceedings can be passed by the externing authority.
“Once the proceedings were initiated by issuing process under Section 59 of the said Act, the only logical conclusion could be either issuance of externment order or dropping the proceedings. The operative part directing initiation of proceedings under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. is not contemplated under Section 56(1) of the said Act at all”, the court held.
Case Title: Gautam Hari Singhania v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 308
The Bombay High Court quashed a criminal case against Raymond Group Chairman and Managing Director Gautam Singhania arising out of a cardboard package of Raymond fabric at a Reliance Trends store in Nagpur not having requisite declarations.
Justice GA Sanap of the Nagpur bench held that without specific statements in the complaint regarding Singhania's role in the offence, the magistrate could not have issued process to fasten vicarious liability on the managing director under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
Case Title: Pratibha Prakash Almast and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 309
The Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench allowed pension and retirement benefits to a librarian on the ground that the service she rendered as a part-time employee before her position was confirmed cannot be ignored.
Fifty percent of her tenure as a part-time employee should be included while assessing her eligibility for pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, the bench held.
A division bench of Justices Rohit Deo and MW Chandwani accordingly set aside the order of the Accounts Officer, Accountant General denying pension.
Case Title: Girish Vinodchandra Dhruva and Ors. v. Neena Paresh Shah and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 310
The Bombay High Court set aside trial court's decree for specific performance of a 2005 contract for sale of a flat in Santacruz, Mumbai observing that such a decree will dislocate several members of the seller's family residing in the flat.
Justice Anuja Prabhudessai, while allowing the owner's appeal against the decree of specific performance, observed there has been a steep increase in the price of the flat since 2005, and the buyers, who were supposed to make payment by October 31, 2005, not doing so frustrated the very purpose of the sale.
The court said that the extension of time with mutual consent was merely a substitution of the original time limit and does not amount to alteration of the basic nature of the contract. “time does not cease to be the essence of the contract with mere extension of the original time period”, the court held.
Mere statement made by power of attorney in absence of documentary evidence is not proof of financial capacity of the plaintiffs, the court held.
Absence Of A Specific Clause Under GAFTA Arbitration Rules Doesn't Bar Arbitrator From Deciding The Challenge Made To Its Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Arbaza Alimentos Ltd v. MAC Impex and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 311
The Bombay High Court reiterated that a general reference to a standard form of contract would be enough for incorporation of an arbitration clause. The court was dealing with a petition seeking execution of a foreign arbitral award passed in the arbitral proceedings conducted under the 'Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) Simple Disputes Arbitration Rules No.126.'
The bench of Justice Manish Pitale observed that the contract between the parties was executed as per the 'Global Pulse Confederation (GPC) Contract No.1', a standard form of contract which provided for resolution of disputes by way of arbitration. Since the contract between the parties specifically incorporated the terms of 'GPC Contract No.1' and contained a reference to the same, there was an arbitration agreement between the parties, the court concluded.
Case Title: Oerlikon Balzers Coating India v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 312
The Bombay High Court quashed FAQ 61 of the circular 21/2020 dated December 4, 2020, issued by the CBDT to the extent that it restricts appeals to those dismissed in limine' on the ground that it was not only adverse to the interest of the assessee but also contrary to the object and reasons of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020 (DTVSV-A).
The bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata observed that the additional qualification, viz. "in limine," added to the word appeal, is adverse to the assessee, against the mandate of DTVSV-A, and thus contrary to law.
Case Title: PVR Ltd. v. M/S Proetus Ventures LLP and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 313
Merely receiver's bank account mentioned in a bill being in a particular city does not amount to the bill being payable in that city, the Bombay High Court held.
Justice Arif S Doctor decreed PVR's commercial summary suit against one Proteus LLP and directed Proteus to pay its dues for screening ads at PVR's multiplexes in Pune and Mumbai, while dismissing Proteus' challenge to Bombay HC's jurisdiction in the matter.
Case Title: XXX vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 314
Owing to several procedural lapses by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Yavatmal, the Bombay High Court ordered re-adjudication of a plea to try two juveniles as adults in the case of a gang-rape of a minor girl.
Justice GA Sanap at the Nagpur bench noted that the JJB's roznama didn't specify if the juveniles or their advocates were even given a copy of the application, their psychiatric evaluation report or if they participated in the assessment process under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The bench further observed that final order passed by the JJB to try the juveniles as an adult with such a half-hearted inquiry, "has caused prejudice not only to the JCLs, but to the informant and the victim.”
Case Title: State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Sudhir Bhagwat Kalekar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 315
Observing that time limit for a government servant to change his date of birth in service records is meant to avoid uncertainty in administration, the Bombay High Court held that such requests for such change cannot be entertained at the end of someone's career.
A division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Sandeep V Marne observed that cases for change in date of birth filed just before retirement in order to extend service lead to chaos in the administration.
The court set aside Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's order allowing former ACP (Traffic) of South Mumbai Sudhir Kalekar's plea for changing his date of birth filed only two months before his scheduled retirement.
GST Provisional Attachment Order Not Valid After Expiry Of 1 Year: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Bharat Parihar v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 316
The Bombay High Court held that the GST provisional attachment order is not valid after one year.
The bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the communication dated April 21, 2022, provisionally attaching the Petitioner's bank account is rendered illegal and invalid by virtue of the provisions of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act. The extension of the provisional attachment by communication dated April 19, 2023, was illegal.
The petitioner/assessee challenged the provisional attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner with the bank under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 and a communication dated April 19, 2023, by which the provisional attachment made on April 21, 2022, is retained under Section 83 of the CGST Act.
Case Title: Lakhan Pralhad Misal v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 317
The Bombay High Court castigated two lawyers for misleading the court to secure bail for their client in an attempt to murder case. The court observed that increasingly lawyers were providing result-driven services putting their own careers at stake.
The court decided to refer the matter to the Bar Counsel for disciplinary action. However, after both erring counsels approached the judge along with officer bearers of the Bar Association and agreed to given an unconditional written apology, the action was withdrawn.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 318
The Bombay High Court held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation in respect of any assets based on the actual cost of the assets.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice M.M. Sathaye observed that the actual cost of the assets will be the actual cost that the assessee paid to the predecessor after revaluing the assets, and certainly, the assessee will be entitled to claim depreciation for the subsequent years on the basis of the actual cost paid.
Case Title: SLS Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 319
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated to recover the tax share premium of Rs. 679 crores.
The bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata observed that the AO had only lagged the share premium amount of Rs.679.32 crores, which according to him was chargeable to tax that had escaped assessment, and did not question the amount of Rs.68 lakhs received by the Petitioner company representing the value of Rs.68 lakhs of shares of the face value of rupee 1 per share.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income International Taxation-1 v. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerce Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 320
The Bombay High Court granted the benefit of the India-Singapore Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) to the e-commerce platform Alibaba Singapore.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla upheld the order of the ITAT that if the Revenue was so convinced that the assessee's activity in India with various subscribers was carried out by Alibaba Hong Kong, then the department was expected to act against Alibaba Hong Kong and not the assessee, i.e., Alibaba Singapore.
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Colgate Palmolive Marketing SDN BHD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 321
The Bombay High Court held that consideration received by assessee Colgate Palmolive's Malaysian arm from its Indian entity for providing access to System Analysis Program Development (SAP) system is not taxable as royalty.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that the payment of USD 11,80,500 made by Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited (CPI) to the Assessee could not have been brought to tax under the Act as equipment royalty.
Priority Of The Secured Creditor Over Govt. Dues Under SARFAESI Act, 2002: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ronak Industries v. Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 322
The Bombay High Court held that priority belongs to the secured creditor in respect of the dues of the Central government, state government, or local authority under Section 26-E of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
The bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice M.M. Sathaye observed that the statute goes quite far, and it is not only revenues, taxes, cesses, and other rates payable to the State Government or any local authority but also those payable to the Central Government that would have to stand in the queue after the secured creditor for payment of its dues.
Bombay High Court Allows IGST Refund On Zero Rated Supply Along With 7% Interest
Case Title: Sunlight Cable Industries v. The Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 323
The Bombay High Court allowed the refund of IGST on zero-rated supply along with 7% interest.
The bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the IGST paid on the exports in question, as it is certain that this is not a case where the petitioner is availing of any double benefit, that is, the IGST refund and a higher duty drawback.
Case Title: Gyan SP Developers LLP v. Tahsildar 1 (Special Class), SRA and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 324
Nineteen tenements in Jogeshwari, Mumbai were demolished on Tuesday after Bombay High Court pulled up the Slum Redevelopment Authority and BMC for stalling the demolition on the basis of a letter by MLC Pravin Darekar to CM Eknath Shinde against the redevelopment scheme.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale had stated on the previous date that the authority of High Court is above that of MLAs, and also warned action against those responsible for any such interference with court orders.
SRA submitted a compliance report by the Tehsildar, SRA, stating that demolition of the nineteen structures has been carried out as scheduled on July 4, 2023.
Case Title: Sagar Chandramauli Ponnala v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 325
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man co-accused of luring an unassuming job seeker to his ultimate death during the Covid-19 pandemic on the ground that the prosecution prima facie failed to substantiate the circumstantial evidence against him.
Justice SM Modak granted bail to Sagar Ponnala booked under Sections 326 (grievous hurt), 302 (murder) and 34 of IPC. The judge noted that apart from call records there was nothing more to connect Ponnala to the crime.
It further rejected the prosecution's argument that the bounty-bag collected by a watchman near the crime scene and handed over to the police days later could be termed as a recovery at Ponnala's behest merely because he allegedly pointed out the place where the bag was left.
No Material Available To Conclude Income Had Escaped Assessment: Bombay HC Quashes Income Tax Notice
Case Title: Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 326
The Bombay High Court provided relief to the Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited by quashing the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The court observed a lack of tangible material to support the conclusion that income had escaped assessment, thereby prohibiting any further steps by the tax authorities regarding the notice.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata reiterated that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure is allowable under Section 37(1) of the Act. The bench further noted that the insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) operates prospectively.
Case Title: Vishal Kanhaiyalal Shrimali v. Union Territory of Daman and Diu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 327
The Bombay High Court quashed detention orders against a father-son duo and their advocate allegedly detained for raising their voice against pollution caused by the marble industry.
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh observed that the orders were passed without application of mind, no material was placed before the detaining authority to conclude that the detenues threatened the peace and tranquillity of the public.
Considering that the detenues had to remain in custody since November 10, 2022 despite detention orders not being based on any material, the court also awarded costs of Rs. 20,000 to each detenue. Additionally, the court called upon the concerned authorities to organize workshops for officers responsible for dealing with detention laws.
Case Title: Vijay S/o. Harinarayan Choudhary v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 328
The Bombay High Court held that after expiry of lease, pendency of civil suits between landowner and leaseholder would not give the leaseholder right to store petroleum on the site under Rule 152(1)(i) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002.
A division bench of Justice Rohit B Deo and Justice MW Chandwani sitting at Nagpur quashed the license granted to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) for operating a petrol pump on a plot in Nagpur.
Case Title: Dr. Sandeep S/o Ashokrao Ragade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 329
The Bombay High Court held that temporary service cannot be counted while determining a medical officer's eligibility to appear as an in-service candidate in NEET PG. While temporary service can be counted for awarding grace marks to a medical officer posted in rural areas, minimum three years of permanent service is mandatory for status of in-service candidate in NEET PG, the court clarified.
A division bench of Justice Mangesh S Patil and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar sitting at Aurangabad clarified the provisions of government resolution (GR) on Regulation For Selection of In-Service Medical Officers from the cadre of Maharashtra Medical and Health Services Group - A for Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses.
Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash Admission Process For MBA/MMS Courses Through CET 2023
Case Title: Jay Pramod Rikame and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 330
The Bombay High Court refused to quash the results of the Maharashtra Common Entrance Test (CET) 2023 and process for admission to MBA/MMS courses observing that normalization of scores is necessary, and no candidate can demand it not be done at all or be done at his convenience.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Kedar Gokhale rejected a writ petition filed by 154 students against the admission process, observing that this is an attempt to cancel the exam after participating in the retest (fifth slot) and not obtaining desired results.
Case Title: Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle – 27(3) and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 331
While emphasizing that if the concerned officers followed the settled law and refrained from issuing null and void notices, it would be beneficial not only for the citizens but also for the already overburdened courts in the country, the Bombay High Court ruled that all notices and consequential proceedings under the Income Tax Act in the name of a deceased assessee were null and void.
The Division Bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata observed, “In our view, if the concerned officers follow the settled law and abstain from issuing notices which are null and void, would not only help the citizenry but also the courts in the country who are already overburdened. In fact, it would be in tune with the Finance Act 2021 which aims to achieve the ultimate object of simplifying the tax administration, ease compliance and reduce litigation.”
Case Title: Dr. Jaysiddheshwar Shivacharya Mahaswamiji v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 332
The Bombay High Court quashed an order cancelling caste certificate of Solapur BJP MP Jaysiddheshwar Shivacharya Mahaswami.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Rajesh S Patil remanded the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration observing that the committee did not follow the mandatory procedure.
“The scrutiny committee has substantially bypassed the mandatory procedure prescribed in the SC and SC Act 2000 and the SC Rules 2012 in passing the impugned order, and, as such has committed a patent illegality in the matter”, the court held.
The court found that the Scrutiny Committee failed to record the necessary satisfaction and denied Shivacharya the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and the vigilance officer, violating the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012.
Case Title: Media Net Software Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 333
The Bombay High Court held that CGST/MGST authorities would not have jurisdiction to retain the amount of tax on export transactions.
The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra S. Jain has directed the state government to transfer the amount to the Central Government.
The petitioner was required to deposit tax on the export transaction in question with the authorities under the CGST Act and/or the MGST Act. The petitioner had taken a clear position that authorities would not have jurisdiction to demand any tax on the export of services.
Bombay High Court Refuses Temporary Bail To Nawab Malik On Medical Grounds In Money Laundering Case
Case Title: Nawab Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 334
The Bombay High Court refused temporary bail to former Maharashtra Cabinet Minister and NCP leader Nawab Malik in ED's money laundering case.
The order was passed by Justice Anuja Prabhudessai. Malik sought bail on the ground that one of his kidneys has failed and the other is functioning only at 60 percent capacity and is deteriorating further.
Case Title: Rohit Manohar Joshi and Ors. v. Tree Authority Thane Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 335
The Bombay High Court has decided to monitor the de-concretization work around the roots and bases of trees in Thane city. The Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) on Wednesday told the court that it will complete de-concretization within 45 days.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Arif Doctor was hearing a PIL seeking de-concretization of tree roots and bases in Thane District.
“Since the learned counsel for the Thane Municipal Corporation states that the work of de-concretization would be commenced immediately and would be completed within 45 days, we intend to monitor the same”, the court said.
The court directed the TMC to establish and to ensure adequate publicity of a helpline number and email address where residents can report trees in need of de-concretization.
Case Title: Ashik Ramjan Ansari v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 336
Raising concerns about the increase in criminal cases involving minors in consensual sexual relationships, the Bombay High Court called for a shift from a punitive approach towards adolescents' sexuality to one that enables access to sexual and reproductive health services.
“The mere apprehension that adolescents would make an impulsive and bad decision, cannot classify them under one head and by ignoring their will and wishes. The age of consent necessarily has to be distinguished from the age of marriage as sexual acts do not happen only in the confines of marriage and not only the society, but the judicial system must take note of this important aspect," Court observed.
It added,
"Whilst all children are entitled to be protected from sexual violence, such protection should also enable young people to extend their boundaries, exercise choices and engage in necessary risk taking though not exposing them to inappropriate response, harm and danger. The penal approach towards adolescents' sexuality has impacted their life to a barrier free access to sexual and reproductive health services”, the court observed.
Justice Bharti Dangre said that the criminalization of romantic relationships has burdened the justice system, consuming significant time and resources, while ultimately the victim turns hostile. It stressed the importance of striking a balance between the protection of vulnerable class and those capable of deciding what is right for them.
Bombay High Court Quashes Reopening Income Tax Assessment After 4 Years Merely On The Change Of Opinion
Case Title: Mukand Limited v. The Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 337
The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening of income tax assessments after 4 years merely on the change of opinion of the Assessing Officer (AO).
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that the Assessing Officer had in his possession all primary facts, and it was for him to draw a proper inference as to whether the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation should be adjusted against capital gains or profit and gains from business or profession. There was nothing more to disclose, and a person cannot be said to have omitted or failed to disclose something of which he had no knowledge.
The petitioner/assessee has filed a petition challenging the legality and validity of a reassessment notice issued by the department under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reassessment notice was issued more than four years after the expiration of the relevant assessment year.
Bombay High Court Stays District Magistrate's Order Restraining Namaz In Jalgaon Mosque
Case Title: Jumma Masjid Trust Committee v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 338
The Bombay High Court stayed for two weeks the District Magistrate's (DM) order restraining people from offering prayers at a mosque in Erandol Taluka, Jalgaon and allowed religious prayers to continue until the next hearing, scheduled after two weeks.
Justice RM Joshi of the Aurangabad bench observed that prima facie, the DM passed the order without being satisfied that there is likelihood of breach of peace, and directed the mosque keys to be handed over to Jumma Masjid Trust Committee, which maintains the mosque.
“Prima facie perusal of the order impugned shows that there is no finding recorded about the Authority being satisfied that there is likelihood of breach of peace on account of alleged dispute…Section 144 of Cr.P.C no doubt provides the powers to the District Magistrate even to take suo moto action, however, existence of likelihood of causing of disturbance of public peace or tranquility is sine qua non to assume such power. In prima facie opinion of this Court for want of such findings being recorded makes impugned order vulnerable and not sustainable in law”, the court stated.
Hindu group Pandavwada Sangharsh Samiti (PSS) has claimed that the mosque in question resembles a temple and accused the local Muslim community of encroachment. The Trust responsible for maintaining the mosque claims to possess records proving the existence of the structure at least since 1861.
Case Title: Abbott India Limited v. Dipak s/o Arunrao Deshmukh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 339
The Bombay High Court held that a "Therapy Business Manager" whose job involves executing business development, marketing strategies, and customer management, is not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Justice Avinash Gharote of the Nagpur bench was dealing with a writ petition challenging labour court's finding that one Dipak Deshmukh, employed as Therapy Business Manager at pharmaceutical company Abbott India Ltd. was a workman.
“The nature of duties which the respondent is required to perform in terms of the order of appointment and those specifically enumerated in Annexure-II above clearly indicate that the employment of the respondent is neither to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work”, the court observed.
Case Title: Aslam Salim Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 340
The Bombay High Court has ordered the release of a 30-year-old man convicted in 41 theft cases and sentenced to over 83 year in prison, as the trial courts did not order his sentences to run concurrently.
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Gauri Godse observed that if a man is made to undergo imprisonment for an excessive period, it would lead to a travesty of justice.
The convict, one Aslam Shaikh, filed the present writ petition through the Legal Services Authority, seeking a direction that the sentences in the 41 cases should run concurrently. Additionally, he requested the setting aside of the total fine amount of Rs. 1,26,400/- imposed by various courts in these cases. Shaikh has been in custody since December 3, 2014, after being arrested and prosecuted for theft in different cases by various police stations.
The High Court noted that the petitioner's cumulative sentence would amount to over 90 years in prison, effectively a life sentence for theft, which was grossly disproportionate to the crime committed. The court emphasized that the primary goals of sentencing are deterrence and reformation, and in this case, such an excessive sentence would lead to a serious miscarriage of justice.
Case Title: Shaila Jitendra Kanthe v. Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 341
The Bombay High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking CBI investigation into Maharashtra CM Eknath Shinde and Deputy CM Devendra Fadnavis for deaths of 14 people allegedly due to heatstroke and stampede during the Maharashtra Bhushan Award ceremony held at Navi Mumbai's Kharghar on April 16.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Arif S Doctor disposed of the PIL after Advocate General Birendra Saraf informed the court that the concerned Investigating Agency had already initiated an investigation into the matter.
Case Title: Melwyn Isidore Fernandes and Others vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 342
The Bombay High Court directed the Thane Municipal Corporation not to use land designated as burial ground in the city development plan for any other purpose.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Arif S Doctor was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding inadequate availability of cemeteries for the Christian community in the city. It sought opening of all reserved plots allocated for Christian cemeteries in the Thane city development plan.
“We direct that the plots mentioned in paragraph-6 of the affidavit dated 14 September 2022, which have been designated as Cremation Ground/ Burial Ground/ Smasha Bhumi in the development plan will not be put to any other use other than the one designated in the development plan unless requisite procedure of law is followed for the change of user”, the court directed.
Case Title: Usha Eswar v. Rajeshwari Menon
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 343
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment can't be initiated on the grounds of a subsequent contradictory ruling by the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR).
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that merely because the AAR in the case of another Applicant has taken a different view, it cannot be a sufficient basis on which the department could ever have any reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
Case Title: Shramik Janta Sangh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 344
The Bombay High Court directed the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) not to insist on heirship/succession certificates for grant of compensation to kin of sewage workers who died while cleaning sewers/septic tanks, in cases where there are no disputes among the claimants.
A division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Sandeep V. Marne passed the interim order in a writ petition filed by Shramik Janta Sangh highlighting the delay in payment of compensation to the family members of deceased sewage workers.
AO's Duty To Adjust Brought Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation: Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment
Case Title: Mukand Limited v. The Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 345
The Bombay High Court, while quashing the reassessment, held that the Assessing Officer had in his possession all the primary facts and it was for him to draw a proper inference as to whether the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation should be adjusted against capital gains or profit and gains from business or profession.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that the assessee/petitioner had truly and fully disclosed all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. Not only were material facts disclosed by the assessee truly and fully, but they were also carefully scrutinised, and the figures of income, as well as deductions, were worked out carefully by the Assessing Officer.
Capital Gains Can't Be Added As Unexplained Cash Credit For Sale Of Penny Stock: Bombay High Court
Case Title: PCIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 346
The Bombay High Court held that capital gains cannot be added as unexplained cash credit for the sale of penny stock.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that since the shares were purchased on the floor of the stock exchange and not from a broker, payment was made through the banking channel, deliverables were taken in the DEMAT account where the shares remained for more than one year, contract notes were issued, and the shares were also sold on the stock exchange, the long-term capital gains claimed as exempt cannot be treated as accommodation entries.
The respondent/assessee had shown the sale proceeds of shares in scrip Ramkrishna Fincap Ltd. (RFL) as long-term capital gain and claimed exemption under the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Indus Towers Ltd., Pune (Formerly, Bharti Infratel Ltd., Pune) v. Grampanchayat, Chikhalhol, Tal. Khanapur, Dist. Sangli and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 347
Observing that the fears expressed by some villagers about harmful radiation from a mobile tower were unfounded, the Bombay High Court quashed a resolution passed by Chikhalhol Grampanchayat in Sangli District restricting the installation of a mobile tower.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Rajesh S Patit held that the Grampanchayat lacked the authority to issue such a resolution and the apprehension about radiation has already been dismissed in the case of Biju K. Balan and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors (2019) which held that,
“there is no scientific material or data warranting prohibition on installation of mobile tower and that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised on the basis of apprehensions, which are not rooted in facts and which are not supported by reliable scientific material.
Court also observed that there was no scientific material as of the date of rendering of the judgment, which indicated any identifiable risk of serious harm on account of such radiations.
Case Title: Santosh Pandurang Parte v. Amar Bahadur Maurya and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 348
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a 35-year-old man arrested after commercial quantity of Ganja was allegedly seized from his farmhouse, on the ground that the authorities did not send samples collected in front of the Magistrate to the Chemical Analyzer.
Justice S. M. Modak observed –
“learned Magistrate has taken the inventory and drawn few of the samples as mentioned in the para no. 14 of certificate on page no. 128 but fact remains that these samples were not sent to the Chemical Analyzer. So it is true that the directions in para no. 31(1) of the observations in case of Union of Indian Vs. Mohanlal were not followed. Ultimately when the evidence will be adduced during the trial, there will not be Chemical Analyzer report available on the basis of the analysis done about samples taken before learned Magistrate what will be available is Chemical Analyzer report about samples taken at the spot/office.”
Case Title: Kishor Shivdas Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 349
The Bombay High Court deprecated the practice of some Special Judges under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act not properly reflecting the submissions of victims as per Section 15A of the Act in their orders.
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S Waghwase, while granting bail to a man accused in a murder case, observed that bail application should be decided only after informing and hearing the informant or the victim.
Case Title: Ramchandra Maruti Yedage v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 350
The Bombay High Court criticized an Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad citing insubordination and judicial impropriety while dealing with a bail application of a murder accused.
Justice RM Joshi of the Aurangabad Bench observed that the Judge entertained and allowed the bail application of the accused despite being aware of previous High Court order granting the accused liberty to approach the High Court, and not the trial court, for bail.
“The trial Courts are expected to maintain judicial propriety and ensure that there is no insubordination of Higher Court in any manner. The Lawyers and Public Prosecutors being officers of the Court also share equal responsibility to be honest and fair to the Courts and in no case involve themselves in suppression of facts before any Court of law”, the court observed.
SARFAESI Act | Secured Creditor May Initiate Recovery Proceedings Against Guarantor Even If Defaulter Is Placed Under Moratorium: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Latif Yusuf Manikkoth v. Board of Directors of the Bank of Baroda and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 351
The Bombay High Court held that a secured creditor can initiate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against the guarantor in case of loan default even when there is a moratorium on action against borrower under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
A division bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Rajesh S Patil dismissed a guarantor's writ petition seeking to restrain a bank from acting against it to recover a loan on the ground that National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has issued a moratorium on action against the borrower.
“NCLT has declared a moratorium against the action being taken against the Borrower, including the SARFAESI proceedings. However, the Secured Asset is owned by the Petitioner/Guarantor. Therefore, according to us, as such, the Respondent No.3 /Bank can proceed against the Mortgaged Property of Personal Guarantor as per S.13(11) of the SARFAESI…the bank has not violated the moratorium as ordered by the NCLT, in initiating SARFAESI Proceedings against Petitioner / Guarantor”, the court held.
Case Title: Hanuman S/o Dattarao Karkar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 352
Bombay High Court held that the plea of not being armed would not absolve an accused from liability under Section 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the IPC.
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S Waghwase sitting at Aurangabad dismissed an appeal filed by five persons were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 144 (joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon),and 302 (punishment for murder) read with 149 of the IPC.
“Once the case of a person falls within the ingredients of Section 149 IPC, the question that he did nothing on his own, would be immaterial, as everybody is considered to be aware of the probable and natural outcome of the acts with which they have formed unlawful assembly. Mere plea 'not being armed' would not absolve a person from liability. Once their gathering has been demonstrated to have indulged in unlawful act, sharing of common intention comes into play”, the court held.
Case Title: Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar and Anr. v. Suraiyya Rafik Khalifa and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 353
The Bombay High Court held that the principal employer's liability in case of accidental death/injury of contractor's employee is limited to the compensation amount under Section 12 of the Employee Compensation Act and does not include penalty and interest for default.
“...for failure to comply with statutory obligation on the part of the employer he can be saddled with additional liability to pay interest and penalty, however the principal employer, who is made liable to pay compensation by extended arm under Section 12 of the Employee's Compensation Act cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay the interest and penalty”, the court observed.
Justice SG Chapalgaonkar of the Aurangabad bench, while upholding over 6 Lakhs compensation granted to kin of driver who died of cardiac arrest while on duty, observed that driving tanker to deliver water to villages is a mentally and physically stressful job.
Case Title: The Goa Foundation v. State of Goa and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 354
The Bombay High Court held that there is no legal impediment on the Goa government to declare the Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary as a tiger reserve even if the final notification under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA) has not been issued declaring some areas within Mhadei as sanctuary.
A division bench of Justice MS Sonak and Justice Bharat Deshpande while directing the State government to notify the Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary as a tiger reserve within three months clarified that issuing final notification under Section 26-A (declaration of area as sanctuary) is not a prerequisite for declaring a protected area as a tiger reserve.
Bombay High Court Asks Haj Committee To Announce Fares Before Pilgrims Choose Embarkation Point
Case Title: Rubeena Shaheen v. Haj Committee of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 355
The Bombay High Court asked that the Haj Committee of India (HCoI) to implement its guidelines and announce the fares in advance to enable the pilgrims to choose the nearest economical embarkation point (EP), in a batch of writ petitions filed by 180 Haj pilgrims concerning fares for Aurangabad EP for the Haj Pilgrimage, 2023.
A division bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and YG Khobragade sitting at Aurangabad noted that the EP charges for Mumbai was Rs. 53,043/- while for Aurangabad, it was 1,40,938/- for Haj Pilgrimage-2023.
The court however, refused to order refund to Haj pilgrims who chose Aurangabad as their EP and couldn't change it after rates were announced holding that it did not have the expertise to decide whether the fare for Aurangabad EP was “exorbitantly high”.
Case Title: Prameya Welfare Foundation v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 356
The Bombay High Court asked the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to consider drafting a policy wherein Ganesh Utsav or other festival organisers found violating permission norms are denied permission for future events.
The PIL filed by NGO Prameya Foundation alleged that pandal organizers violate norms by digging up roads to erect the pandal and leave the roads in a sorry condition after the festival, causing inconvenience to organizers.
Therefore, it sought a direction to MCGM to impose an additional deterrent on organizers by denying future permission and levying hefty fines for digging public roads.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor disposed of the PIL with a direction to the MCGM to consider enacting a policy based on the prayers in the petition by treating the petition as a representation.
Case Title: Hanumant Ashok Shinde v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 357
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man accused of murdering his girlfriend and chopping her body, after noting that the police didn't collect DNA samples of the woman's heirs to identify the recovered body parts.
Justice Amit Borkar observed that the identity of the recovered body parts, which were completely decomposed, needs to be determined during the trial and prima facie, there isn't sufficient material to warrant further detention of the accused.
Case Title: Madhani Prakash Engineers JV v. UoI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 358
The Bombay High Court has quashed the CBDT's order rejecting the assessee's application for condonation of the 43-day delay in filing the return of income (ITR).
"Refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated. The authorities fail to understand that when the delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that the cause will be decided on merits after hearing the parties. In our view, the approach of the authority should be justice-oriented so as to advance the cause of justice. If a refund is legitimately due to the applicant, the mere delay should not defeat the claim for refund," the bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed.
HAMA | Daughter Cannot Continue Mother's Maintenance Claim After Her Death: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Jayshree @ Pushpa v. Satyendra s/o Shivram Jindam
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 359
The Bombay High Court held that daughter cannot continue her mother's claim of maintenance from husband after her death, as the right to claim maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA) is an individual right against another person.
A division bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice YG Khobragade sitting at Aurangabad refused to allow married daughter of a deceased woman to continue claim for enhancement of maintenance awarded to her mother.
“right to claim maintenance under the personal laws viz., Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, Muslim Law, Christen Law is in the personal nature. It is an individual privilege of a person who is governed under the Personal Law…right of maintenance of wife against her husband is in personam and not in rem, therefore, the right to sue does not survive in favour of the applicant, who is married daughter of the deceased Appellant and Respondent”, the court held.
Case Title: Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Swastik Associates & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 360
The Bombay High Court held that a plaintiff in a commercial suit seeking to amend his plaint to place documents on record must show reasonable cause for not disclosing the documents in the plaint at the time of filing of the suit, if they were in his power and possession.
Justice Manish Pitale held that the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act must operate rigorously to commercial suits to achieve its objective of speedy disposal of high-value commercial disputes.
“...the only provision under which the Applicant can place on record a document which was in its power, possession, control or custody at the time of filing of the suit but was not filed along with the plaint, is Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, as applicable to the commercial courts. The said provision mandatorily requires the Applicant/Plaintiff to establish a reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the document along with the plaint”, the court held.
The court rejected the proposal to place additional documents on record in a commercial suit and only allowed a partial amendment as per the applicant's proposal.
Case Title: Bablu Jumman Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 361
The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to a lawyer accused of raping his client, observing that the relationship appeared consensual despite the accused being a married man.
While the victim claimed she had no idea the lawyer she was consulting and was in love with was married, the court noted that the woman was in contact with the man despite knowledge of his marriage.
Accordingly, Justice Anuja Pabhudessai granted him anticipatory bail on an application under section 438 of the CrPC.
Case Title: JEM Exporter v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 362
The Bombay High Court held that if the appeal is defective for non-production of a certified copy, failure to deposit, or incorrect signatures, no order on merits can be passed. The appellate authority erred in law in passing an order on the merits.
The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the Commissioner (Appeal), having not given an opportunity to the Petitioner to cure the procedural defect, was not justified in rejecting the appeal. It would be contrary to the principle of natural justice.
"In our view, justice cannot be denied for failure to comply with the procedure without giving an opportunity to the Appellant to rectify the procedural defects. In our view, the Commissioner (Appeal) ought to have issued a defect memo calling upon the Petitioner to produce the proof of pre-deposit of tax as per section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, for filing the certified copy of the order and for authentication of the appeal memo as per rule 26(2)(a)," the bench observed.
Case Title: Coventry Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 363
The Bombay High Court held that the belated hearing of the show cause notice would amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
"Merely for the reason that there was shifting of the Commissionerates and reorganisation of its office, there would be no reason to abdicate and/or not comply with the obligations under the Act to promptly and/or expeditiously adjudicate the show cause notice, to be taken to its logical conclusion," the bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain observed.
The petitioner/assessee was engaged in the construction of a residential complex. The petitioner is a construction contractor undertaking work in the SEZ. It received a refundable deposit.
Case Title: Vinayak Ukharam Chavhan v. Divisional Joint Registrar and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 364
The Bombay High Court held that Registrar (Co-operative Societies) cannot dissolve the board of directors of a society on account of half of the members of the committee resigning before the society has accepted the resignations.
Justice Kishore C Sant of the Aurangabad bench in a writ petition quashed Registrar's order dissolving the board of directors of a cooperative society whose six out of 12 members resigned at once, observing that the resignations hadn't been accepted by the society.
Case Title: Marathwada Legal and General Education Society, Aurangabad v. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 365
The Bombay High Court reiterated that no reservation mandated by the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2021 (Act of 2021) is applicable to the post of principal in colleges.
A division bench of Justice Mangesh S Patil and Justice Shailesh P Brahme sitting at Aurangabad held that a Government Resolution dated September 23, 2016, excluding the post of principal from reservation prevails over the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, that provides for reservation for teachers.
Case Title: Shiney Suraj Ahuja v. State of Maha & others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 366
The Bombay High Court directed the Passport Authority of India not to withhold the renewal of actor and rape convict Shiney Ahuja's passport on grounds of his pending appeal in High Court.
Justice Amit Borkar observed, “Considering the fact that during pendency of present appeal passport was renewed on more than six occasions and there is no violation of bail conditions, the applicant has made out a case for direction to the passport authority to renew the applicant's passport, provided he is otherwise liable for renewal of passport for ten years.”
Case Title: Ruju R. Thakker v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 367
The Bombay High Court summoned six Municipal Commissioners of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region to explain the poor condition of roads and open manholes.
The Municipal Commissioners include BMC, Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation, Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation, Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Thane Municipal Corporation. The secretary of MMRDA has also been asked to remain present.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Arif Doctor was livid after learning about frequent accidents even five years after High Court's speaking order on the issue.
The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by Advocate Ruju Thakkar on the dismal condition of roads.
Case Title: Mahaveer Realities & Ors. vs Shirish J. Shah
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 368
The Bombay High Court ruled that even though the parties had participated in the arbitral proceedings continued by the Arbitrator after his mandate had expired, the same cannot amount to a waiver under Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The court remarked that Section 29A of the A&C Act that provides the time limit for passing the award, is a non-derogable provision and thus, Section 4 of the Act has no application.
The bench of Justice R.I. Chagla made the observation in a petition for extension of time limit for passing of the award filed by the petitioner-claimant, Mahaveer Realities. The court, while appointing a substitute arbitrator, said that the arbitral proceedings would continue from the expiry of the mandate of the erstwhile Arbitrator. It added that proceedings carried on by the erstwhile Arbitrator after the expiry of its mandate, shall be disregarded by the substitute Arbitrator.
The bench dismissed the claim that since the parties knowingly proceeded before the Arbitrator after the expiry of its mandate, they were deemed to have waived their right to object to the continuation of proceedings after expiry of the mandate.
Case Title: Cummins India Limited v. ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 369
The Bombay High Court held that the transaction of payment of royalty for the use of technology is inextricably linked with manufacturing activity and should be aggregated with other international transactions in the manufacturing segment for the purposes of benchmarking it.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that the Tribunal was totally incorrect in saying that accepting the aggregation of royalty payments with other international transactions under the manufacturing segment for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 was in the context of an earlier agreement under which the royalty was paid.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 370
The Bombay High Court directed its Registry to place before an appropriate bench a clutch of petitions to decide a common legal issue – whether family courts are competent to hear domestic violence cases.
“A common question involved is whether the Family Court established under the Family Courts Act, 1984 is competent to conduct the proceedings and give the relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and whether the proceedings under the DV Act can be transferred to the Family Court,” the court observed.
Justice Sarang Kotwal said this question has arisen in a number of pleas pending before his bench and there are conflicting decisions of various single judges on the issue.
Bombay High Court Quashes Review Order Which Disallowed Deductions, Being Contra To Natural Justice
Case Title: Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 371
The Bombay High Court quashed the review order against Kalpataru Power Transmission, disallowing works-contract deductions beyond Show Cause Notice (SCN).
The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the review order is in patent breach of the principles of natural justice and that, without jurisdiction, the petition deserved to be entertained.
Bombay High Court Cancels NOC Of Builder Over Default In Payment Of Transit Rent
Case Title: Sushila Gordhandas Parikh v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 372
The Bombay High Court on Friday cancelled the No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted to Parekh Constructions LLP, developer of a redevelopment project in South Mumbai due to its default on payment of transit rent to the residents of the demolished building.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale ordered Parekh Constructions, Parekh Constructions LLP, and Nishcon Realty Pvt Ltd to entirely vacate the site, including removing personnel, security guards, equipment, and machinery, by Monday, August 14, 2023.
The court directed Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to issue a formal letter for cancellation of NOC without giving any opportunity of hearing to the developers. The court added that it is open for MHADA to proceed in accordance with law for the appointment of another developer.
Case Title: Olga Rosnina v. Foreigners Regional Registration Office, Goa and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 373
The Bombay High Court at Goa set aside a deportation order against a Russian national on grounds of breach of VISA condition observing that it was not a case of threat to internal security of India and authorities should have at least sought a clarification from the woman before ordering her deportation.
A division bench of Justice MS Sonak and Justice Bharat P Deshpande observed that while the Central government has wide powers of deportation, it cannot ignore principles of natural justice and fair play while exercising its powers.
Case Title: Suvarna Ratnakar Taras v. Mangalprabhat Lodha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 374
A judgement pronounced in open court but signed by the judge after he was transferred is a valid judgement, the Bombay High Court held.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh relied on several Supreme Court judgements which held that once a judgement was delivered or pronounced in open court, the manner of delivery couldn't be faulted.
The writ petition filed by the petitioner in a partition suit challenged an order setting aside the status quo in her favour on the ground that the judge signed the order after he was transferred. The defendants were Mangal Prabhat Lodha and another.
“Although I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for Petitioner that the judgment was signed after transfer of charge in view of the roznama on record and date below the signature, the aforesaid decisions are relied upon to drive home the point that judicial act of pronouncement of judgment in open court was complete and hence no fault can be found in the manner of delivery,” the court held and dismissed the petition.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 375
Observing that paternal grandmother or paternal aunt cannot be a substitute to mother during the phase of growth of a girl child, the Bombay High Court held that custody of a girl about to attain the age of puberty is preferred with her mother over her father.
Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh upheld a Family Court's order in a divorce case granting interim custody of an 8-year-old girl to her mother, who is also a doctor, and visitation rights to the father.
“the girl child aged about 8 years would be undergoing hormonal changes and also physical changes and as such much care has to be taken during this phase of growth of the girl child and the paternal grand mother or the paternal aunt cannot be a substitute to the mother who is also a qualified doctor. During this phase of life, the girl child requires care and attention of a women who would be better equipped to understand the process of transformation which the girl child will undergo and as such, the mother at this stage is preferred against the father”, the court held.
Case Title: Govind Poslya Gavit v. The Competent Authority
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 376
Observing that procedural laws dealing with citizens' right to hold property aren't merely ornamental and cannot be taken away, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) set aside a land acquisition and compensation order “highhandedly” and hastily passed by IAS officer Minal Karanwal Assistant Collector, Nandurbar, Maharashtra.
Justices Ravindra Ghuge and YG Khobragade pulled up Karanwal for the manner in which the land acquisition was executed against tribals from the very outset, giving them just one day notice for a hearing, passing an order without hearing and compensating them less by terming their industrial lands as agricultural lands. It observed,
Accordingly, the court directed a newly appointed Competent Authority to conduct a re-hearing and award compensation treating the petitioners' lands as Industrial NA.
Bombay HC Disposes Of Plea Seeking Adequate Water Facility For Taloja Prison Inmates After State Govt. Informs About Installation Of Water Tanks, RO Plants
Case Title: Abhay Shamsundar Kurundkar v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 377
Maharashtra Government informed the Bombay Hight Court that 20 water tanks of 5,000 litres capacity each have been installed in Taloja Central Prison and installation of 5 RO water purifier plants for drinking water will commence on September 1, 2023.
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse thus disposed of a petition filed by an inmate seeking adequate water facility in the jail. The petition alleged that inmates are provided 1-1.5 buckets of 'unclean' water a day for drinking, washing, bathing etc.
Case Title: Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 378
Deprecating the trend of filing complaints against opposing counsels to intimidate them, the Bombay High Court held that mere identification of deponent in an affidavit does not mean advocate is personally attesting to the contents of the affidavit.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale set aside disciplinary proceedings for alleged professional misconduct against Advocate Geeta R Shastri, former Additional Government Pleader in the Court.
The Court cited Order 19 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which emphasizes that Affidavits should be confined to facts the deponent can personally verify. The Court noted that Shastri was not even the Advocate-on-Record, and merely identified the deponent. Such identification does not imply personal attestation to the accuracy of the deponent's statements, the court held.
The court said that the threat of disciplinary complaints against the opposing lawyer is used in several matters to ensure that the opposing party does not get proper legal representation.
Two Children Limit For Panchayat Members Not Meant To Discourage Re-Marriage, Excludes Step-Children: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Khairunisa Sheikh Chand v. Chandrashekhar Daulatrao Chincholkar & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 379
A panchayat member with more than two biological children could be disqualified under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, however, the member's step children wouldn't be a determining factor for the same, the Bombay High Court held.
The court said that the objective of the Section was to disqualify a panchayat member responsible for the birth of more than two children. Therefore, a woman cannot be disqualified because her spouse has two children from his previous wedlock.
According to Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Act - No person shall be a member of a panchayat, or continue as such, who has more than two children unless they were born before the cut-off date.
A division bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and Vrushali Joshi said, “It is not the object of the said provision to discourage re-marriage of a spouse who has more than two children from his/her previous wedlock.”
Case Title: Asha Shivaji More v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 380
The Bombay High Court referred to a larger bench the question of whether an appeal by the victim against the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court is maintainable.
Justice Modak while dealing with two criminal appeals filed by the victims against acquittal of the accused by the sessions court in appeal, observed,
“I think forum for this (victim's) Appeal is correlated to forum for an Appeal provided to the Accused against the judgment of conviction. If such forum is not there, how an Appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court will be maintainable?. So also, there is a controversy when the Appellate Court convicts the accused, whether victim can prefer an Appeal under Section 372 proviso of the Code (for inadequate compensation/for higher sentence) ?”
Trial Court Didn't Conduct Inquiry Into Actual "Giving And Taking" Of Child In Adoption: Bombay HC Quashes Order Granting 2-Yr-Old's Custody To Biological Parents
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 381
The Bombay High Court quashed a civil court's order directing a couple to hand over custody of a two-year-old adopted child to his biological parents and directed the civil court to decide their suit seeing a declaration that the adoption is valid, within six months.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh held that the trial court failed to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the actual "giving and taking" of the child in adoption. The court highlighted that evidence needed to be presented to establish the actual giving and taking of the child with the intent to transfer the child from one family to another.
Underlining the sensitivity of the matter, the court said that there will be no extension of time for the final adjudication of the suit, and until then the child, who has been with the adoptive parents since he was two days old, will continue to remain with them.
Case Title: Prakash Madhukarrao Desai v. Dattatraya Sheshrao Desai
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 382
The Bombay High Court held that failure of the cheque holder to record a loan given to a cheque drawer in books/Income Tax Returns will not by itself render the loan unenforceable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Vrushali V Joshi observed that the existence of a legally enforceable debt/liability in favour of the cheque holder is presumed under Section 139 of the Act, and the accused has the onus to rebut such presumption.
The court further held that violation of section 269-SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) which prohibits the receipt of more than Rs. 20,000/- in cash also would not render the transaction unenforceable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Church Patriarchal Tribunal Not A 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Archbishop Patriarch Of Goa Rev. Fr. Filipe Neri Ferrao v. State Information Commission
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 383
The Archbishop Patriarch of Goa in his capacity as the Patriarchal Tribunal or Church Tribunal is not a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), the Bombay High Court held.
The decision was passed in an eight years old case regarding information on the Archbishop Patriarch of Goa's appointment. He adjudicates private law matters of Roman Catholics like annulment of marriage.
Justice MS Sonak reasoned that only a body established or constituted by a law made by the Parliament or the State Legislature would fall under RTI, however the Patriarchal Tribunal couldn't be called an authority constituted by the parliament or state legislature.
The court noted that certain laws like the Canon Law made under the Portugal Parliament for its colonies was granted limited recognition under the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962. But this recognition didn't mean they were laws constituted under the Parliament or State Legislature.
Case Title: Shamsher Ahmed Shaikh & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 384
The Bombay High Court expressed its concerns regarding the shrinking space for burials in cemeteries in Mumbai and reminded the Municipal Commissioner & Maharashtra Government of their duty to provide such spaces.
The court was hearing a PIL which alleged that all the three spaces in the city originally earmarked by the Municipal Commissioner for cemeteries were either deleted from reservation or being used for some other purpose.
“For a Municipal body as also the State Government, there cannot be any engagement more urgent than finding appropriate space for burial of dead,” the bench of Justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Arif Doctor observed in their order.
The bench added that under Section 436 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, it was mandatory upon the Commissioner to find other convenient places for the purpose of burials.
Case Title: Rahul S/o Sahdev Lokhande and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 385
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held that a Sarpanch who got removed from the post due to a no-confidence motion can contest a by-election conducted to fill the resulting vacancy.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Vrushali V Joshi observed that there is no provision in the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 prohibiting such a Sarpanch to contest the by-election necessitated due to their own removal.
Ensure Proper Maintenance Of Case Diaries Without Lame Excuses: Bombay High Court To Maharashtra DGP
Case Title: Sudhir Dhar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 386
Expressing strong displeasure over police disregard towards proper maintenance of case diaries, the Bombay High Court directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Maharashtra to ensure that his directions about proper maintenance of case diaries are followed by police officers without any lame excuses.
The division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shivkumar Dige, while dealing with a writ petition filed by eight persons accused of insulting a woman's modesty, noted that the police had maintained the case diary in loose sheets disregarding Section 172 of the CrPC as well as the DGP's directives.
The bench on highlighted that this was not the first time issues with case diaries had arisen, with multiple cases showing police stations not adhering to the proper procedures for maintaining case diaries under Section 172 of the CrPC. The court expressed frustration over the fact that despite having previously brought such cases to the attention of the Director General of Police (DGP) of Maharashtra, no improvement has been observed.
Case Title: Ranjeet Sampatrao Raskar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 387
The Bombay High Court disposed of two PILs challenging proposed de-merger of Uruli Devachi and Phursungi villages from the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), and establishment of a separate Municipal Council. The PILs claimed that the state government did not follow the process of consultation with the corporation as per section 3(3)(a) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
The court held that an Administrator appointed under Section 452A of the Act, possesses the authority to exercise all functions and duties entrusted to the body corporate under Section 5 of the Act.
Advocate General of Maharashtra Dr. Birendra Saraf told the bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor that the state government will rectify any legal deficiency found in the process of consultation with the Corporation before issuing the final notification modifying PMC limits.
Case Title: Sangita Vilas Kiwade v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 388
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a 51 years old woman who murdered her neighbour's 3-year-old grandchild and attempted to kill three other grandchildren by throwing them in a canal over repayment of an illegal loan.
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse observed that throwing a three-year-old child into the canal is so imminently dangerous that the appellant had knowledge that it would cause his death.
The appellant, Sangita Vilas Kiwade, was convicted under sections 363 (kidnapping), 302 (murder), and 307 (attempt to murder) of IPC for abducting four children and pushing three of them into a canal, leading to the demise of the youngest of them – a three-year-old. She is also convicted under section 32B(b) of the Bombay Money ending Act for operating illegal money lending business.
Case Title: Ashim Kumar Bagchi v. Balaji Telefilms Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 389
The Bombay High Court refused to stay the release of the Ayushmann Khurrana starrer Dream Girl 2. The film is produced by Ekta Kapoor's Balaji Telefilms.
Justice Riyaz Chagla passed the order in a Commercial IPR suit filed by writer-director Ashim Kumar Bagchi wherein he alleged that makers are passing off his registered script as their own.
Bagchi sought an interim injunction on the release of the film. However, the court observed the interim plea was filed only on August 18, 2023 and the respondent must be given an opportunity to respond.
“It is well settled that at the eleventh hour, films should not be prevented from their release. An opportunity is required to be given to Respondent / Defendant to file their reply to the Interim Application.”
Application To Become Approver Cannot Be Withdrawn Once Pardon Is Granted: Bombay High Court
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Badrinarayan Gote
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 390
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held that an accused cannot withdraw application to become a witness for the prosecution (approver) against co-accused once the application is accepted and pardon is already granted.
Justice GA Sanap explained that once an accused becomes an approver, she must be examined as a prosecution witness, and pardon can be withdrawn only as per section 308(1) of the CrPC if the prosecutor, after examination, certifies that she did not adhere to the terms of her pardon.
“Section 308(1) Cr.P.C. would show that after acceptance of pardon in view of the scheme of Sections 306 to 308 the approver has no choice or option or a right to not press or withdraw the application made to become an approver… in order to relegate the approver to the position of the accused the public prosecutor must certify that in his opinion the approver has, either by wilfully concealing anything essential or by giving false evidence, has not complied with the conditions on which the tender was made. Only after such certificate being given by the public prosecutor, the pardon tendered to the approver can be withdrawn”, the court held.
Case Title: Jayendra Narandas Bhatia v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 391
The Bombay High Court ordered the release of one Pratap Jivani, who had been unlawfully detained at his wife's behest at the Amulya Prem Foundation Rehabilitation Centre in Bhiwandi.
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse, in a habeas corpus writ petition filed by Jivani's cousin Jayendra Bhatia, observed that no medical papers showing that he needed to be admitted in the rehabilitation centre were produced.
“It is clear that Pratap was unnecessarily detained at the said rehabilitation centre at the behest of his wife…We are not shown any medical papers of Pratap to show that he was required to be admitted to the rehabilitation centre. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, we permit Pratap to go alongwith the petitioner. The aforesaid representatives of the rehabilitation centre assured us that henceforth they will not detain any person in such manner without following due process of law. Statement accepted.”
Bombay High Court Quashes Sexual Harassment FIR Against Company's Human Resource VP
Case Title: Vijay Choudhary v. state of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 392
The Bombay High Court has quashed a sexual harassment FIR against the Vice President Human Resources (HR) of an insurance firm observing improvements in the complainant's statement to the police.
The division bench headed by Justice AS Gadkari cited guideline 6 & 7 in the State of Haryana & Ors. vs Bhajan Lal & Ors judgement.
The court noted that the woman wrongly claimed the company didn't take action on her complaints as the ICC conducted two enquiries against the petitioner.
“Perusal of record clearly indicates that, the FIR lodged by the Respondent No. 2 is filled with improvements and suppression of material facts which are on record, as noted above and according to us is lodged with mala fide intention, only to harass the Petitioner.”
Case Title: Astec LifeSciences Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 393
The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening of the assessment after 4 years in the absence of concealment by the assessee.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that where the assessee has fully disclosed all the material facts, it is not open for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment on the ground that there is a mistake in the assessment. What is recorded is that the petitioner wrongly claimed certain deductions to which he was not entitled. There is a well-known difference between a wrong claim made by an assessee after disclosing all the true and material facts and a wrong claim made by the assessee by withholding the material facts fully and truly. It is only in the latter case that the Assessing Officer would be entitled to proceed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Officers Not Diligently Discharging Duties, Playing With Public Revenue, MoF Should Take Serious View: Bombay High Court
Case Title: UPL Limited v. UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 394
The Bombay High Court held that the Ministry of Finance is responsible for the officers who are not diligently discharging vital duties and who, in fact, are playing with the public revenue.
"We take judicial notice of a series of petitions reaching this Court on the ground that the concerned jurisdictional officers exercising such enormous powers not only under the Finance Act, 1994, but also under the other Central Acts, for reasons which are totally ill-conceived and contrary to law, have not adjudicated and/or taken forward the show cause notice for unduly long periods, and in some cases about 10 years," the bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain observed.
Case Title: Mohan Yeshwant Padawe & Ors v. State Of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 395
The Bombay High Court held that transit buildings cannot be repaired or made permanent since they are inherently temporary and designed for short-term use.
The division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata added that these buildings were not subject to structural audit regulations.
“Transit buildings are by the very nature of their construction and by structural design temporary and not meant to last beyond three to five years. There is no question of repairs or of these buildings being made permanent. Even the planning permissions that are granted for transit buildings are not granted in the same manner or subject to the same stringent requirements as they are for permanent constructions…the attempt to apply the law on the TAC in structural audits to transit buildings is not only an inversion of law but is a perversion of the law.”
The observation came in a writ petition filed by four residents against demolition notices for a transit building constructed in 2006. The bench found that the buildings were built with a life of five years.
GMAT Exam Scam: Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused
Case Title: Kumar Kunal v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 396
The Bombay High Court denied anticipatory bail to one Kumar Kunal, accused of remotely accessing the laptop of GMAT exam candidates through Any Desk app, solving the papers, and manipulating results.
Justice Amit Borkar observed that the custodial interrogation of Kunal is necessary in light of WhatsApp chats between him and one Shantanu, a victim of the scam.
“prima facie, it appears that the relevant extract of diary maintained by the principal accused indicate payment of Rs.1,47,000/- and Rs.2,56,000/- to the applicant by cash. The prosecution case gets strength from the WhatsApp conversion between the applicant and witness Shantanu who is one of the victim…In the context of observations made in the said order the WhatsApp chat between witness Shantanu and the applicant does have material bearing on the investigation. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary”, the court held.
Mere Use Of Deceased Brother's SIM Card Not An Offence: Bombay High Court Quashes Cheating Case
Case Title: Heena Afrin Huzaifa Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 397
Observing that mere use of deceased brother's SIM card does not constitute an offence, the Bombay High Court quashed a cheating case against a doctor filed by her sister-in-law for alleged use of her deceased husband's SIM card and sale of his movable assets without consent.
A division bench of Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice RN Laddha in a writ petition filed by the accused seeking quashing of the case remarked that prima facie, the proceedings were initiated solely out of family difference.
“Merely because the sim-card of real brother was used by the sister i.e., the present petitioner, that by itself will not constitute or amount to commission of the offence. The fact remains that to infer misuse of sim-card by the petitioner, there is no iota of evidence to infer such act…Prima-facie, it appears that the criminal proceedings are initiated by the complainant against the petitioner solely out of family differences as could be inferred from the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner.”
Case Title: Ankiti Bose v. Mahesh Murthy and Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 398
The Bombay High Court granted a permanent injunction against venture capitalist Mahesh Murthy over an article he authored for Outlook Business Magazine against Singapore-based startup Zilingo Pte's former CEO Ankiti Bose.
Bose who was sacked from Zilingo over alleged financial irregularities last year, was granted relief in the defamation suit she filed against Murthy and Outlook. She was however not named in the article.
Justice SM Modak noted that while it may be true that Bose wasn't specifically named in the article, the defendants took a dual stand in their affidavit in reply.
Case Title: Sandeep Pandurang Patil v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 399
The Bombay High Court set up a committee headed by a retired judge for a “thorough” inquiry into alleged illegal allotment of tenements under the Basic Services for Urban Poor scheme being implemented by the Kalyan-Dombivali Municipal Corporation, located just outside Mumbai.
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Arif Doctor observed:
“The scheme has a laudable object of not only developing the area but also providing basic infrastructure facilities such as housing and shops etc. to the urban poor; however, as per the allegations, the said scheme has been marred by large scale irregularities.”
'R. Logo': Bombay High Court Denies Interim Relief To Republic TV In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Rayudu Media
Case Title: ARG Outlier Media Private Limited v. Rayadu Vision Media Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 400
The Bombay High Court refused interim relief to ARG Outlier Media Private Limited – owner of Republic TV - in a trademark infringement suit against Telangana based Rayudu media over its logo.
Justice Manish Pitale dismissed the interim application filed by ARG against using the logo.
Non-Payment Of Pension Once Court Quashed Employee's Termination Unfair Labour Practice Even If Court Didn't Explicitly Order Payment Of Pension: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Commissioner, Kolhapur Mahanagarpalika v. Shashikala Vijay Bhore
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 401
The Bombay High Court imposed cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation for making a 73-year-old retired staff nurse to litigate for 15 years for her pension and pensionary benefits.
Justice Sandeep V Marne dismissed a writ petition filed by the Commissioner of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation challenging Industrial Court's order to deposit the pension amount due to Shashikala Vijay Bhore, a staff nurse who retired in 2008.
The court held that since Bhore's dismissal was overturned, once she retired, she became entitled to pension and pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules. The court noted that Item 9 of the Schedule IV to the MRTU and PULP Act enlists unfair labour practice of failure to implement an award. Once Labour court passed an order setting aside her termination, the Municipal Corporation should have granted her pension and other pensionary benefits, the court reasoned. In that sense, the non-payment of pension would be covered by Item 9, the court said.
Case Title: Sanjay Katkar v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 402
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the protection to members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (Atrocities Act) can't be limited to states where they are officially recognized as such.
A Full Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Justice Bharati Dangre, and Justice NJ Jamadar held that even if a community isn't recognized as SC or ST in a state, they still get the protection of the Act if an atrocity happens against them there
The court further ruled that, to avoid discrepancies, appeals against trial court orders under the Atrocities Act, regardless of the specified punishment, should be dealt by a single judge of the High Court. The court held that appeals against grant/refusal of bail under by Section 14A(2) of the Act should also be heard by a single judge of the High Court.
Case Title: The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 403
The Bombay High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in disallowing part of the commission payment to Indian Hume Pipe.
The bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the mere fact that the assessee, Indian Hume Pipe, establishes the existence of an agreement between him and his agent and the fact of actual payment leaves it to the discretion of an officer to consider whether such expenditure was made exclusively for the purpose of the business. The expenditure incurred must be for commercial expediency. However, in applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether an expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business, the reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the businessman's point of view and not from the department's perspective.
Case Title: Dattaprasad Kamat v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 404
The Bombay High Court has refused 50% entitlement to beneficial ownership in a husband's shareholding under the Portuguese Civil Code for 'deemed dividend' taxability.
The bench of Justice Valmiki SA Menezes observed that Section 2(6A)(e) in the Income Tax Act, 1922, which is similar to the provisions of Section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, creates a deeming fiction, by which the dividend referred to is not a real dividend and the person deemed to have received it does not actually get any income. The only person who is deemed to have received that income can be assessed in respect of the dividend, that person alone being a shareholder.
The court noted that the effect of clause (e) of Section 2(22) is to broaden the ambit of the expression "dividend" by including certain payments that the company has made as a loan or advance for the individual benefit of a shareholder, but the definition does not alter the position that the dividend has to be taxed in the hands of the shareholder alone.
'Contempt: Bombay High Court Sentences 5 State Govt Officers To Month-Long Civil Imprisonment, Questions Their Suitability As Public Officers
Case Title: Ajay Uddhav Narhe & Anr. v. Uttam Patil, Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 405
The Bombay High Court came down heavily on five government officers and sentenced them to one-month civil imprisonment for contempt of court by repeatedly disobeying its orders.
A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain was dealing with contempt petitions filed by project affected farmers regarding non-compliance of court's order for allotment of land to them.
The court however, stayed the execution of the sentence till September 6, the next date of hearing.
Court Can Within The Limited Scope Of Judicial Scrutiny Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act, Examine If Claims Are Frivolous Or Meritless: Bombay High Court
Case Title: 22Light v. OESPL Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 406
The High Court of Bombay held that despite the limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of the A&C Act, the Court would refuse to appoint the arbitrator when on a prima facie scrutiny of the material on record, it can come to a conclusion that claims sought to be arbitrated are frivolous and meritless.
The bench of Justice Manish Pitale refused to appoint an arbitrator when the claims sought to be arbitrated by the petitioner were pre-mature as per the terms of the agreement
Case Title: Memon Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Prema Amarlal Gera & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 407
The Bombay High Court expressed displeasure over a lawyer blaming his junior for the dismissal of an appeal due to his missing a courtroom appearance.
“We find it most unfortunate that the Appellant's Advocate on record has sought to lay the blame for non-appearance at the hands of a junior Advocate, who had infact enrolled as an Advocate less than two months before the date on which the said Appeal came to be dismissed”, the court remarked.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor directed the senior lawyer Jayesh Patel to gift the book 'Working in a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience by Granville Austin' to the junior advocate as a gesture of goodwill.
“it would be apposite that instead of granting costs in the conventional sense, that the learned Advocate on record for the Appellant gift a copy of 'Working in a Democratic Constitution : The Indian Experience by Granville Austin' to the learned junior Advocate, whose name finds mentioned in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Interim Application. This, in our view, would serve as a gesture of goodwill and erase any misunderstanding or ill will that may have occurred in the mind of learned junior Advocate”, the court said.
Case Title: Uday Chari v. State of Goa and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 408
The Bombay High Court at Goa held that Christian members of a community listed the Goa State OBC list are not entitled to reservation benefits unless the state government specifically notifies the Christian members of the community to be included in the OBC list.
A division bench of Justice MS Sonak and Justice Bharat P Deshpande set aside the caste certificate of a Zilla Panchayat member observing that the notification for including Mesta community in the state OBC list does not include “Christian Mesta”, to which he belongs.
Case Title: Oberoi Mega Entertainment LLP and Anr. v. Sanjay Saha and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 409
The Bombay High Court refused relief to actor-producer Vivek Oberoi seeking to stall the release of Nawazuddin Siddiqui starrer 'Haddi.' The movie will hit OTT screens on Thursday.
Justice Manish Pitale deprecated the petitioners for failing to approach the court earlier.
“As on today, this Court finds that the petitioners waited all along and when the movie was declared to be released on 07.09.2023 on the OTT platform of respondent Nos.4 and 5 (ZEE), they rushed to this Court seeking ad-interim relief for stay of release of the said movie.”
Case Title: Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxation
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 410
The Bombay High Court held that a write-off of a bad debt cannot be held to be an asset under section 153A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that since the write-off of bad debt cannot be held to be an asset, clause (a) of the 4th proviso to Section 153A(1) of the Act would bar any assessment that is proposed to be made for the Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.
Case Title: Deepak Jagdev v. Eknath Shinde and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 411
The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking probe against Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and others for allegedly spending "Rs. 10 crore or more" for holding Dussehra rally at the MMRDA grounds.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor dismissed the PIL after the petitioner's advocate Nitin Satpute failed to appear before the court on three occasions, including today.
Case Title: Sachin D. Basare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 412
The Bombay High Court asked the Maharashtra government to frame a comprehensive policy for public celebration of festivals in Mumbai taking into account the city's increasing population and the limited capacity of its public spaces.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla opined that the current policy does not adequately consider the potential inconveniences and traffic congestion arising from public celebrations in Mumbai's streets and squares.
Bombay High Court Drops Contempt Proceedings After 5 State Govt Officers Tender Unconditional Apology
Case Title: Ajay Uddhav Narhe & Anr. v. Uttam Patil, Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 413
The Bombay High Court dropped contempt proceedings against five state government officers after they tendered unconditional apologies to the court for not following its orders.
A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain observed,
“considering the fact that the contemnors are Government officials and that their apology as tendered to the Court as informed to us is bonafide, heartfelt and real contrition, we accept such unconditional apology and the assurance as given by the contemnors, as an undertaking to the Court.”
Case Title: Darshana Anand Damle v. DCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 414
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment notice and held that the granting of a licence for the purpose of development of the flats and selling the same could not be said to be granting possession.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice N.K. Gokhale relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Seshasayee Steels (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax VI(2), Chennai, in which it was held that the assessee had only granted a licence to a developer who entered into the assessee's land for the purpose of development, and that did not amount to 'allowing the possession of the land' as contemplated under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and therefore Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act would not apply.
Case Title: Shreeji Realty v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 415
The Bombay High Court quashed Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) condition requiring a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee (MHCC) for the construction of a 69.90-meter-tall building in Mumbai's Fort Heritage Precinct.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata observed that no such condition was imposed by the BMC while granting permission for construction of a 60-meter-tall building opposite the concerned property.
The court said that this was a case under Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates equality before the law and equal protection of laws. The court opined that Condition 38 in the IOD is contrary to Clause 9(D)(b) of the Regulation 52 of DCPR 2034 because that clause does not provide that MHCC NOC is mandatory. It only requires that guidelines may be taken into consideration, giving discretion to the Municipal Commissioner, the court noted.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 416
Observing that a physically disabled person is not incapable of giving threats, the Bombay High Court refused to quash a domestic violence case against a disabled woman accused of abusing and threatening her daughter-in-law.
Justice RM Joshi of the Aurangabad bench observed that whether any domestic violence was caused is a matter of trial, but prima facie the complainant was subjected to domestic violence.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 417
Noting a lacuna in the law for mentally retarded persons, the Bombay High Court extended the scope of Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1980 to allow guardianship of an adult suffering from mental retardation.
Justice Riyaz Chagla observed that provisions of the Mental Health Act, both the repealed and the existing Acts, did not cover mental retardation under the definition of mental illness.
The court noted the existing Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 unlike the repealed Act doesn't have a provision for the District Court to appoint a suitable person as Guardian of a person suffering from mental illness and incapable of taking care of himself.
“Thus, in my view the only remedy available in such cases is for the Petitioner to apply under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for the Petitioner to be appointed as Guardian of the person, despite he/she being a major, but suffering from mental retardation,” the bench said.
'Infructuous': PIL Challenging Appointment Of CBI Director Withdrawn From Bombay High Court
Case Title: Rajendrakumar Vishwanath Trivedi v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 418
A PIL challenging the appointment of IPS officer Subodh Kumar Jaiswal as the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation was withdrawn after the Bombay High Court was informed the officer's term had ended rendering the PIL infructuous. The position is now held by IPS officer Praveen Sood.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Arif Doctor dismissed the PIL as withdrawn.
Case Title: Chanda Ram Shivsharan v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 419
The Bombay High Court stayed the conviction of one Chanda Ram Shivsharan, a sweeper at Solapur Municipal Corporation in a dowry death case.
Justice MS Karnik, while staying her conviction for the death of her daughter-in-law, observed that she is a Class IV employee who is responsible for her two minor grandchildren.
“Though the Applicant is convicted, however considering the nature of the evidence against the Applicant, the delay in lodging of the FIR which is not satisfactorily explained, the fact that she is in employment as a Sweeper who has to provide for her grandchildren, are factors which have persuaded me to stay the conviction. This is a rare and an exceptional case where the facts are such that I am of the opinion that the conviction needs to be stayed”, the court held.
The court allowed Shivsharan's interim application for stay on conviction in her appeal against conviction.
Case Title: Nisargadeep Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 420
The Bombay High Court upheld Marathwada University's decision to withdraw the affiliation of Shri Tulja Bhavani Arts and Science College, Aurangabad, due to severe lack of academic and infrastructural facilities.
A division bench of Justice Mangesh S Patil and Justice Shailesh P Brahme at Aurangabad, in a writ petition against the university's decision, observed that there were serious lapses in the college and the university had followed proper procedure for withdrawal of affiliation.
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. Triller Inc.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 421
The Bombay High Court directed video sharing platform Triller to pay unpaid dues of USD 300,000 (approximately Rs. 2,44,26,480) to Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited for use of its copyrighted music.
Justice Kamal Khata in Zee's suit for recovery of the amount observed that Triller has a history of litigations in the United States and might attempt to dispose of its assets in India to evade its obligations.
Phone Tapping Case: Bombay High Court Quashes Two FIRs Against IPS Officer Rashmi Shukla
Case Title: Rashmi Shukla v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 422
The Bombay High Court quashed two FIRs against senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Rashmi Shukla accused of allegedly tapping politicians' phones between 2015- 2019 when the previous BJP led alliance was in power in the state.
Justices AS Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh quashed the FIRs after Advocate General Birendra Saraf informed the bench that Mumbai Police was refused sanction to prosecute Shukla under section 197 of the CrPC.
The FIR registered at Colaba police station, in Mumbai, was for allegedly tapping the phones of Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Eknath Khadse.
Case Title: Ravindra Waikar v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 423
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition filed by MLA Ravindra Waikar from Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) party regarding cancellation of permission granted to him and four others to build a luxury hotel in Mumbai.
The order was passed in chambers by a bench of Justice Sunil Shukre and Justice Rajesh Patil who observed that rules of natural justice were followed BMC issued a Waikar a notice and asked to clarify his position in writing before cancelling construction permission.
"We find that there are no malafides or any lapses on the part of the Corporation in taking the decision impugned in the present Petition," the order read. The court, however, stayed its order for four weeks to enable Waikar to approach the Supreme Court.
Time To Bury Pernicious Practice Of Submitting Information In 'Sealed Cover': Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sonali Ashok Tandle v. Ranka Lifestyle Ventures and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 424
Taking a firm stance against practice of parties submitting information in sealed cover to the court, the Bombay High Court refused to accept Income Tax returns and financial statements of a developer in a sealed cover and directed it to file an affidavit for the same.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata observed that no court shout permit a litigant to disadvantage the opposing party by submitting material in a sealed cover.
The court further said that filing information in sealed cover when the court has ordered the party to file an affidavit for the information will invite contempt proceedings.
Bombay High Court Directs Dept. To Refund TDS Amount Deposited By Assessee Under Protest
Case Title: Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 425
The Bombay High Court, while invoking the doctrine of unjust enrichment, directed the department to refund the TDS amount deposited by the assessee under protest.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice N. K. Gokhale observed that technically, even though the amount deposited by the petitioner would be called 'tax deductible at source', what the petitioner paid was 'an ad hoc amount, not technically a TDS amount'. Moreover, since it is also confirmed by the Court that the amount paid to Davy Mckee Corporation (DAVY) was not chargeable to tax in India, the departments' insistence on the assessee paying that amount was not in accordance with the law, and the amount so paid over must be refunded to the assessee.
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Issued After 3 Years Without Proper Approval
Case Title: Siemens Financial Services Pvt Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 426
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment notice issued after 3 years without proper approval.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice N. K. Gokhale observed that the approval of the specified authority in terms of Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act is a jurisdictional requirement, and in the absence of complying with this requirement, the reopening of assessment would fail.
Bombay High Court Imposes ₹3 Lakh Cost On Scrutiny Committee For Delay In Issuing Student's Caste Validity Certificate
Case Title: Iqra Maqsood Ahmed Ansari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 427
The Bombay High Court imposed cost of Rs. 3 Lakhs on the Chairperson and members of District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Suburban for "extreme stress and inconvenience" caused to a student due to delay in issuance of her caste validity certificate.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla held that the delay, solely attributable to the Scrutiny Committee, should not cause injustice to the student who couldn't submit the certificate to the college authorities in time for her admission.
44 Years After Railway Accident, Bombay High Court Upholds ₹51K Compensation To Mother Of Deceased
Case Title: Union of India and Anr. v. Umraobi W/o Saiyed Munir and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 428
The Bombay High Court upheld an award of compensation of Rs. 51,000 to the mother of a 24-year-old man who died in a railway accident 44 years ago involving the collision of a truck and a train engine.
Justice PK Chavan observed that the accident was caused due to the negligence of railway staff.
“It is clearly an act of negligence on the part of the employees of the appellants as it appears from the evidence that there was no proper communication between the switchman and the gateman as well as by the concerned Railway station. Had there been proper communication, there would have been an advance intimation to the gateman about passing of the engine”, the court observed.
Case Title: Shri Durga Parmeshwari Seva Mandal & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 429
The Bombay High Court dismissed the plea filed by a former Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) corporator seeking to organise Ganpati immersion in a private artificial pond at a municipal garden at Ghatkopar.
A division bench of Justices GS Patel and Kamal Khata observed,
“No person, let alone a Mandal, has any fundamental — or any other — right to privately create an immersion pond in a public park maintained by the Municipal Corporation. That permission is required, and that this is in the discretion of the Municipal Corporation, is not just undeniable, but is not disputed.”
Case Title: Ashwin Bharat Khater v. Urvashi Bharat Khater
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 430
Observing that the denial of access to one's own house amounts to denial of basic amenities, the Bombay High Court upheld the Senior Citizens Maintenance Tribunal's order revoking two gift deeds executed by an elderly woman in favour of her son and directed the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the subject property.
Justice Sandeep V Marne held so upon finding that the son had failed to perform his duty to provide basic amenities and physical needs to his widowed mother.
“The Gifts were executed out of natural love and affection towards son, which was the only possible consideration for execution thereof. Inbuilt in such love and affection is the duty of the son to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the widowed mother. The events that have occurred post execution of gift deeds so indicate that such love and affection between the Mother and son no longer exists. Along with love and affection, the son has perhaps failed to perform the duty of providing the basic amenities and physical needs to his mother. It was never son's property. He had no right to seek gift thereof”, the court observed.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 431
The Bombay High Court allowed a plea by the children of a former Attorney General and declared them as guardians of one of their siblings under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. The section was originally meant for guardianship of minors.
Justice Riyaz Chagla widened the scope of Section 7 of the Act to allow guardianship of an adult suffering from a mental handicap noting a lacuna in the existing Mental Healthcare Act.
Bombay High Court Criticises Trial Judge For Awarding Lesser Than Minimum Sentence To POCSO Convict
Case Title: Rodu Bhaga Wagh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 432
The Bombay High Court criticised a Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) for awarding 3-year imprisonment to a man convicted for attempting to rape a child, observing that the Act calls for a greater punishment.
Justice Bharati Dangre observed that the prosecution neither brought this to the notice of the trial court, nor is there any recommendation, made for filing of an appeal, on behalf of the state against lesser sentence.
It is not open to a Court to impose a punishment lesser than the minimum that is prescribed, the court said.
Set Up New Bio-Medical Waste Plant In Two Years Or Face Action: Bombay High Court Warns BMC
Case Title: Govandi New Sangam Welfare Society v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 433
The Bombay High Court directed that work on a new facility to dispose of bio-medical waste should be commissioned within two years otherwise and all those involved will be held accountable for failure on their part.
According to the petition filed by Govandi New Sangam Welfare Society, the incinerator facility owned by SMS Enviroclean Pvt. Ltd is a cause of major pollution in Govandi, affecting the residents of the area.
“In view of the aforesaid, we direct that the new incinerator facility shall be commissioned within two years from today. All the authorities, including respondent no.5, shall be held accountable in case there is any lapse on their part in establishing the new incinerator facility within two years from today”, the court held
Case Title: Anupam Mittal v. People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 434
The Bombay High Court temporarily stayed the enforcement of an anti-suit permanent injunction order issued by the Singapore High Court against Anupam Mittal, the founder and CEO of Shaadi.com.
The Singapore High Court order restrained Mittal from proceeding with his petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) alleging oppression and mismanagement of People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd, the parent company of Shaadi.com.
Justice Manish Pitale observed that disputes regarding oppression and mismanagement are non-arbitrable in India and the principle of comity of courts cannot prevent a litigant from pursuing the only available legal remedy.
Case Title: Registrar Judicial, High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 435
The Bombay High Court directed the District Collector, Aurangabad to provide proper boats with specialised operator, life jackets, and rescue air tubes to children rowing thermocol rafts with makeshift oars to cross backwaters of Jayakwadi dam and reach school.
A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice YG Khobragade sitting at Aurangabad recommended having at least two boats to operate in multiple shifts, enabling 24/7 access to transportation.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 436
A family's social strata would be a relevant consideration in deciding divorce cases on grounds of “cruelty”, the Bombay High Court held.
Two years of marriage and 14 years of separation later the High Court granted a businessman divorce from his wife on grounds of 'cruelty' but upheld maintenance granted to the woman.
A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Sharmila Deshmukh observed,
“While considering the conduct of the Respondent in context of 'cruelty' as contemplated under the provisions of Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the strata of the society to which the Petitioner belongs will also be relevant.”
Case Title: Faizal Hasamali Mirza @ Kasib v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 437
The Bombay High Court held that an appeal against a trial court's order can be entertained by the appellate court even after the lapse of statutory period of 90 days under Section 21(5) of the National Investigating Agency(NIA) Act, 2008.
The division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse read down the 2nd proviso to Section 21 (5) of the NIA Act and allowed an application filed by a terror accused seeking to condone the delay of 838 days in filing his bail appeal in HC.
“Courts exist to do justice. Access to justice is a fundamental right and cannot be diluted. If despite 'sufficient cause' being shown, if an appeal under Section 21(5), 2nd proviso cannot be entertained, this would lead to depriving an accused of his fundamental right guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
“If the provision were to be held mandatory…the doors of justice will be shut, leading to travesty of justice, which cannot be permitted by Courts of Law,” the court added
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 438
The Bombay High Court granted the custody of a three-year-old boy, who is a US citizen by birth, to his United States-based father seeking the return of his child to the US in a habeas corpus writ petition.
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse held that the mother's unilateral refusal to return the child to US without a valid or justifiable reason amounted to illegally detaining the child.
Bombay High Court Commutes Man's Death Sentence To 25 Yrs Imprisonment For Rape, Murder Of 6-Yr-Old
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Baburao Ukandu Sangerao
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 439
The Bombay High Court commuted the death sentence to 25-year fixed-term imprisonment for a 36 years old labour, convicted for raping and murdering a six-year-old child.
The division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S Waghwase observed that the trial court did not consider mitigating factors, including the convict's background and the absence of any prior criminal record while awarding the death penalty.
The court emphasised that the trial court must consider whether life imprisonment is unquestionably ruled out and must provide "special reasons" specific to the case for award of death penalty. However, in the present case, the trial court neither considered alternate sentence nor assigned any special reason for the death sentence, the court observed.
Case Title: M v. Navi Municipal Corporation and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 440
Expressing surprise at the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation's unwillingness to correct the father's name on the birth certificate of a 3-year-old, the Bombay High Court directed the Municipal body to immediately replace the woman's ex-husband's name with the child's biological father's name on the birth certificate.
“We confess we are unable to understand the approach of the Municipal Corporation and, for that matter, that of the JMFC,” Justice GS Patel and Kamal Khata observed regarding the mother's failed attempts before the NMMC and magistrate.
Supreme Court in ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) said that whenever a single parent or an unwed mother applies for a birth certificate the only requirement should be that she should furnish an affidavit to that effect. The corrected birth certificate must then be issued.
The High Court observed these case laws couldn't have been overlooked by the NMMC and JMFC. “This is the binding law declared by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court. The Municipal Corporation is not at liberty to say “there is no law.” There is indeed a law.”, said the court
Bombay High Court Judge Recuses After Receiving Letter Alleging Bias, Orders CBI To Probe Sender
Case Title: Suresh Kevalram Khemani & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Unit-I (Eo-1) & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 441
Justice Bharati Dangre of the Bombay High Court recused from hearing a criminal revision application after she received a letter alleging bias but assigned reasons for her recusal and urged CBI action in a strongly worded order.
“It was open for me to recuse, without disclosing the reason, but it is high time that some accountability is attributed to the disgruntled elements, who continue to haunt the system by their unscrupulous acts and walk away, without waiting for consequences of their intimidating action, once the Judge recuse from the matter and it is time to show that the system to continue it's unfinching loyalty to 'Justice'.”
The judge took the letter on the record, ordered a copy to be sent to the Registrar and further urged the CBI to take cognisance of this “judicial impropriety” and conduct and an inquiry into the incident.
The judge noted that it wasn't the first time “communications casting aspersions” have been addressed to the “dispensers of justice.” However, it was necessary to show people using such intimidation tactics that the system continues its unflinching loyalty to 'Justice.'
Private Property Cannot Be Taken Away For Public Purpose Without Compensation: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Eversmile Construction Company Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 442
The Bombay High Court granted compensation to a company in lieu of its land used for the elevated Sahar Elevated Road which allows connectivity to the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport.
“We see no possibility at all in law of private property being taken away for a public purpose without some form of compensation, whether in cash or in kind (in the form of TDR/a DRC), at least not without running afoul of Article 300A of the Constitution of India,” the division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata observed.
In an “utterly unique situation”, both planning authorities - the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) claimed they had no control over the 730 sq meter plot used for the road. The portion is part of a larger land parcel of 22,000 sq meters.
Therefore, the question before the court was who would compensate the petitioner.
In a subsequent resolution the bench directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to grant Eversmile Construction Company Pvt Ltd. the applicable Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in lieu of its land.
DRP Can Give Directions Only In Pending Assessment Proceedings: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Undercarriage and Tractor Parts Pvt. Ltd. v. DRP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 443
The Bombay High Court held that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) could give directions only in pending assessment proceedings.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice N. K. Gokhale observed that once an assessment order is passed, rightly or wrongly, the assessment proceedings come to an end. Therefore, the DRP would have no power to pass any directions contemplated under sub-section 5 of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: G. Chandrashekharan Shivam And Ors. v. Rajkumar Agarwal & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 444
The Bombay High Court held that a claimant in a motor accident case is not obligated to claim compensation from owner of the vehicle he was travelling in and is allowed to only seek compensation from owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident.
Justice Sandeep Marne observed that in cases of composite negligence, the claimant has the right to sue only one of the joint tortfeasors.
Case Title: Shivraj Gorakh Satpute v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 445
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a 22-year-old man booked for possession of commercial quantity of Ganja after 50 Kgs Ganja was allegedly seized from his home between sunset and sunrise based on information given by another accused.
Justice Anuja Prabhudessai observed that the seizure was not a chance recovery, and there was nothing to show the officer's reasonable belief that obtaining a warrant for search between sunset and sunrise would allow the offender to escape.
Case Title: Ashraf Chitalwala v. DCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 446
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment order based on a change of opinion without surfacing any tangible new information.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice N. K. Gokhale observed that the petitioner has fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. The AO issued the first assessment order after carefully scrutinising the material furnished by the petitioner. The respondent department has failed to furnish any reasons for reopening as mandated by law. There is not even a whisper in the entire communication trail as to what was not disclosed.
Case Title: Poonam Basak v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 447
The Bombay High Court held that only Whole-Time members and not the Chairperson of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) can pass an order in disciplinary proceedings under IBC.
A division bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice MM Sathaye held that, prima facie, the Chairperson and Whole Time Members were distinct categories, as the nomination of Whole Time Members and the appointment of the Chairperson are separate processes under IBC. The court noted that considering the Chairperson a whole-time member effectively means there are 6 Whole Time Members instead of five on the IBBI board, which would contravene Section 189 of IBC.
Case Title: Navigns Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Sameer Pandharinath Khandekar and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 448
The Bombay High Court held that there can be no copyright in the theme of 'families going to their ancestral village in Konkan during the Ganpati festival' because in Maharashtra, family members do visit their ancestral places during Ganpati festival.
Justice Manish Pitale made this observation while refusing to stay the release of a web series titled “Devak Kalji” in a copyright infringement suit filed by Navigns Studios Pvt. Ltd. alleging that the producers of the web series copied the plaintiff's script.
Case Title: South Port Limited v. State of Goa
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 449
The Bombay High Court at Goa upheld the constitutional validity of the Goa's Green Cess Act which enables the state government to collect cess on the utilisation of pollution causing hazardous products and uses it to reduce the effects of carbon footprint in the State.
The Act is called The Goa Cess on Products and Substances Causing Pollution (Green Cess) Act, 2013 or the Green Cess Act 2013.
A division bench of Justices MS Sonak and Bharat P Deshpande dismissed a clutch of petitions filed by various companies including Goa Carbon Limited and Vedanta Ltd that challenged the Act citing the State's lack of legislative competence to enact such a statute.
The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the cess collected from them didn't specifically benefit the companies. Therefore, it wouldn't be a 'fee,' but a 'tax' beyond the legislative competence of the state.
Case Title: Mehul Choksi v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 450
The Bombay High Court rejected an application filed by businessman Mehul Choksi challenging an application filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to declare him a fugitive economic offender (FEO) in the Punjab National Bank fraud case.
Justice Sarang V Kotwal observed that the ED's application complied with the form and manner prescribed in the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 (FEO Act) and FEO Rules.
The court held that the verification clause in ED's application satisfied the requirements of the criminal manual of the court as the deponent (deputy director of ED) clearly stated that the information in the application was based on his knowledge derived from records.
The court observed that the FEO Act provided its own special procedure which should be followed in this case, an no separate affidavit needs to accompany the application.
“section 4 of the FEO Act and Rule 3 of the FEO Rules are made to further the objective of this Act and they cannot be bypassed by taking recourse to the other provisions of Cr.P.C. to contend that the affidavit was not proper”, the court observed.
Case Title: Mahesh Sitaram Raut v. National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 451
Observing that the material against forest rights activist Mahesh Raut couldn't lead to a prima-facie inference that he had indulged in a 'terrorist act' under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, the Bombay High Court granted him bail in the Bhima Koregaon – Elgar Parishad larger conspiracy case.
“We are of the prima-facie opinion that on the basis of the material placed before us by the NIA, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the Appellant is prima-facie true to attract Sections 16, 17, 18, 20 and 39 of UAP Act,” the court of Justices AS Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh observed.
The court further noted the 5 years and three months Raut has already spent inside prison without trial.
Case Title: Hemant Dinkar Kandlur v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 452
The Bombay High Court held that the amendment restricting investment in house property in India has retrospective applicability.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice N. K. Gokhale observed that the language of Section 54(F) of the Act before its amendment was that the assessee should invest capital gain in a residential house. It did not mention any boundaries. It is only after the amendment to Section 54(F) of the Act, which amendment came into effect on April 1, 2015, that the condition that the assessee should invest the sale proceeds arising out of a sale of a capital asset in a residential property situated "in India" within the stipulated period was imposed. The amendment is not merely a clarificatory or explanatory amendment, but a substantive one.
Bombay High Court Paves Way For Allotment Of Houses To Society Of High Court Employees
Case Title: Milind Dashrath Narvekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 453
The Bombay High Court cleared the way for construction of housing units for a society of 398 state government employees working in the High Court.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata directed MHADA to allot a 2,769.75 square meter plot of land to members of the society without inviting applications from other High Court employees or reserving 50 percent of the flats for public purpose.
The court opined that the petitioners agreed to scale down from their original demand, thus releasing additional areas for the availability of the 50 percent reservation. The court agreed that the imposition of 50 percent reservation condition would result in flats of a meaningless size and potentially exclude eligible members.
Case Title: Jigna Jitendra Vora v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 454
The Bombay High Court frowned at CBI's unreasonable approach while opposing former journalist Jigna Vora's plea for a fresh passport and directed passport authorities to consider her application afresh.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse took exception to the CBI's constant objection in granting her relief despite no pending appeals against her acquittal.
“The object of Section 437A is to secure the presence of an accused before the higher forum, after the acquittal. The petitioner had infact furnished PR Bond of Rs. 50,000/- before the trial Court. In the present case, the petitioner infact, appeared before the High Court, pursuant to the notice issued in the appeal filed by the CBI. In these circumstances, the CBI ought to have been fair and ought to have accordingly given a report, instead of stating that the case matter is still pending in CBI and her file should not be cleared, when infact, there was no proceeding pending before any Court of law, at the relevant time”, the court observed.
Vora, a former deputy editor of Asian Age newspaper was accused by the CBI of giving crucial information about journalist J Dey to alleged gangster Chhota Rajan, which led to the senior journalist's murder in June 2011. In 2018, a special court found Rajan and eight others guilty under sections 302, 120-B of the IPC and sections 3(1)(i), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) and sentenced them to life imprisonment for Dey's murder. Vora and one more accused were acquitted. Her acquittal was later upheld by the High Court in 2019.
Case Title: Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sou. Jyoti Vithoba Nahire
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 455
The Bombay High Court held that an ad-interim/interim stay can be granted on an award passed under the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) even if the appellants' application for condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal against such award is pending.
Justice Abhay Ahuja held was dealing with interim applications filed by three insurance companies and one individual in separate first appeals seeking a stay on execution of awards passed under the MV Act).
The applicants were seeking to file appeals challenging judgments and awards passed under the Motor Vehicles Act. These appeals, filed under Section 173 of the MV Act, were time-barred, i.e., they were filed after the stipulated limitation period.
Case Title: Pragati Pre Fab India Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 456
The Bombay High Court directed the department to decide the application filed by the assessee in conformity with the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice N. K. Gokhale observed that the assessee had paid self-assessment tax but has not paid the demand made due to reassessment or reopening of the assessment and has challenged the order now pending before ITAT. As permissible under the Office Memorandum dated July 31, 2017, the petitioner had even deposited 20% of the demand and, hence, is not an assessee in default.
The court held that under Section 9(a)(ii) of the DTVSV Act, the only exclusion visualised is a pendency of prosecution in respect of tax arrears relatable to an assessment year as on the date of filing the declaration and not a pendency of prosecution in respect of an assessment year on any issue.
The court found that the assessee has paid self-assessment tax but has not paid the demand due to reassessment and has challenged the order which is now pending before ITAT and consequently, paid the entire amount, accordingly, could not be treated as 'Assessee in default'.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 457
Spouse suffering from epilepsy cannot be ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Bombay High Court observed and upheld a family court order refusing divorce to a man.
A division bench at Nagpur comprising Justices Vinay Joshi and Valmiki Menezes observed,
"…the condition of “epilepsy” is neither an incurable disease nor can it be considered a mental disorder or a psychopathic disorder, for making a ground under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act."
The court further said medical evidence doesn't support the husband's stand that epilepsy would be an impediment to the spouses living together.
Case Title: SNV Aviation Pvt. Ltd. v. Capt. Gareema Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 458
The Bombay High Court allowed a leave petition filed by Akasa Air, a low-cost airline, seeking permission to proceed against five pilots who resigned from the company without serving their notice period.
Justice SM Modak observed that part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Bombay High Court as the resignations were accepted by the company in Mumbai.
“...place where resignation was received can be part of cause of action. Sending a resignation through email cannot be sufficient. Ultimately, the company has to take a call on that. Either company may refuse to accept the resignation, or may accept it conditionally, or may accept it for future date. If these options are available to employer and these options can be exercised only when email (of resignation) is received, part of cause of action has arisen in Mumbai”, the court observed.
Case Title: John Cockerill India Limited v. Sanjay Kamalakar Navare
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 459
The High Court of Bombay held that the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act can itself determine and collect the unpaid or deficit stamp duty payable upon the unstamped or insufficiently stamped agreement.
Case Title: Shishirkumar Gopalchandra Padhy v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 460
The Bombay High Court has expressed strong displeasure at the lack of effort by prosecuting agencies and trial judges to ensure timely completion of criminal trials resulting in prolonged incarceration of the accused.
Justice Bharati Dangare granted bail to a murder accused incarcerated for over seven years in a case requiring examination of just 10 witnesses. Despite expediting the trial, a year ago, there was no progress, the court noted.
“Time and again, I have expressed that some accountability deserves to be fixed and when I say accountability it is not only procedural one but possibly on the courts, who are in seized of such trials and particularly when the accused are incarcerated for such a long time.”
Case Title: Guljama Shah Jahir Shah v. Shri Sadguru Kaka Stone Crusher
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 461
The Bombay High Court held that the trial court is not obligated to provide reasons for the amount of interim compensation in cheque dishonour cases, as long as the requirements provided in Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) are met.
Justice Anil Pansare of the Nagpur Bench observed that satisfaction of Section 143A is reason enough for awarding 20 percent interim compensation to the complainant and requiring trial court to give additional reasons for the amount would defeat the purpose of the section.
“To expect the learned Magistrate to assign additional reasons, in a way, will defeat the amendment for the reason that every order passed under Section 143A will then be challenged on the ground that there are no additional reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate and if additional reasons are assigned, the challenge will be that the reasons assigned are not adequate etc. thereby opening flood-gates of litigations”, the court observed.
Case Title: Manoj Agarwal and Anr. v. Fashion TV Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 462
The Bombay High Court issued an ad-interim direction restraining fashion media company Fashion TV Limited (FTV), from executing franchise agreements in Lucknow with third parties without first offering the franchise to their current franchisees.
Justice Manish Pitale observed that prima facie, despite a First Right of Refusal (FROR) clause in the franchise agreement, FTV executed another franchise agreement with third parties.
“a specific Right of First Refusal in the territory i.e. territory of Lucknow for the period of the agreement, was granted to the petitioners. The effect of the said clauses makes out a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners that if the respondent intended to enter into a further franchisee agreement, the petitioners ought to have been first offered such a franchisee and if the petitioners refused to accept the offer, the respondent could engage with third party”, the court observed.
Case Title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 463
The Bombay High Court ordered Rs. 2 lakh compensation for a music teacher who was illegally detained by the Tardeo Police and allegedly stripped naked to humiliate him in a bailable offence, for violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution i.e. right to live with dignity.
Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Gauri Godse noted how the right to compensation is “palliative” against the unlawful acts of State machineries, who claim to act in public interest and then use the State's powers as a shield to protect themselves.
“The facts as narrated, smacks of police high handedness. It smacks of their insensitivity. It reveals their lack of knowledge of the legal provisions and judgments of the Apex Court, vis-a-vis grant of bail. This action of the police has resulted in unjustified trauma-physical, emotional and mental to the petitioner's husband.”
The court ordered for State to make the payment of Rs. 2 lakh but for the money to be recovered from the salaries of concerned officers of Tardeo Police Station and Saat Rasta Lock-up after liability is fixed following a detailed enquiry. The court ordered the inquiry against officers despite their unconditional apology.
Case Title: Wynk Ltd. v. Tips Industries Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 464
The Bombay High Court held that online music streaming and downloading platforms would not be eligible for discounted compulsory licenses to their music under Section 31D of the Copyrights Act.
This means that internet-based platforms will have to negotiate contracts with big record companies to use their repertoire of music unlike radio and television networks.
A division bench comprising Justices Gautam Patel and Gauri Godse upheld an order passed by Justice SJ Kathawalla, now retired, in a dispute between Bharati Airtel Ltd's WYNK Ltd and Tips.
Case Title: Dolby Builders Private Ltd. and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 465
The Bombay High Court directed BMC to process within four months the application for permission to reconstruct a three-storey house in Worli for Dainik Bhaskar director Girish Agarwal without requiring a No Objection Certificate from Naval authorities- due to the site's proximity with naval missile battery base INS Trata.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice MW Chandwani applied the Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness, and concluded that requiring an NOC for a building of the same height as the previous one, which did not pose security risks, is unreasonable.
The court also quashed four Defence Ministry circulars dated May 18, 2011, March 18, 2015, November 17, 2015 and December 23, 2022 imposing certain restrictions on use of land near “Defence Establishments” such as INS Trata.
Case Title: Maharashtra Rajya Apang Karmachari Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 466
The Bombay High Court instructed its registry to propose the conversion of one of the washrooms in the High Court building in Mumbai into a facility that can be used by orthopedically disabled persons in wheelchairs.
Addressing Advocate Uday Warunjikar's submission that the High Court building doesn't have a single washroom accessible to the wheelchair bound persons, the court said –
“We would, therefore, request the registry to consider this difficulty, prepare an appropriate proposal for either conversion of one of the washrooms in High Court building at Mumbai into a washroom to be used for the wheel chaired, orthopedic disabled persons and place it before the appropriate committee for its due consideration as early as possible. Registrar (Original Side) is requested to do the needful”.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla was dealing with a writ petition from 2021 seeking necessary assistive devices and facilities in government establishments in the State.
Case Title: Sunil s/o Fattesing Sable v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 467
The Bombay High Court held that bone ossification test to determine the age of victim in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is required only when the victim is on the cusp of majority.
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S Waghwase sitting at Aurangabad dismissed a man's appeal against conviction and life sentence for raping a 14-year-old child and observed that her age was proved from her father's testimony.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Anil Kacharu Shinde
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 468
Rs. 100 is a very trivial amount to pursue prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Bombay High Court observed.
Justice Jitendra Jain upheld the acquittal of a medical officer accused of accepting a Rs. 100 bribe in 2007 observing –
“In the instant case, the allegation is acceptance of bribe of Rs.100/- in the year 2007. The amount appears to be too small in the year 2007 and moreso, in the year 2023 when the appeal is being heard against the acquittal. Therefore, assuming that the appellant-complainant is able to prove the charges, (although, I have already held that they have failed to prove the charges), in my view after considering quantum at the relevant time this could be a fit case to be treated as a trivial matter to uphold the acquittal order”, said the court.
The court also held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against Dr. Anil Kacharu Shinde, the 44-year-old medical officer.
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Against Knight Riders Sports
Case Title: Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 469
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment against Knight Riders Sport and held that a change of opinion does not constitute justification to believe income chargeable to tax escaped assessment.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Kamal Khata observed that there is a change of opinion because once a query has been raised during the assessment and has been answered and accepted by the AO while passing the assessment order, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the AO while completing the assessment.
Case Title: Dinanath Manik Katkar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 470
The Bombay High Court held that provisions regarding anticipatory bail in the POCSO Act would not prevail over provisions of appeal in the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act if the allegations under POCSO Act are not prima facie made out against the accused.
Justice NJ Jamadar, while dealing with an anticipatory bail application of a person accused under both POCSO Act and Atrocities Act, observed –
“Apart from a passing reference that there were girls in the procession and they were also video-graphed, there is no other allegation which would prima facie fall within the dragnet of section 12 of the Act, 2012. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate that the applicant prefers an appeal as envisaged by section 14A(4) of the SC and ST Act, 1989.”
Case Title: Vaibhav Subhash Raut v. State of Maharashtra (ATS)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 471
The Bombay High Court granted bail to Vaibhav Raut, prime accused in Nalasopara Arms Hauls case who was arrested in 2018 on charges of being a member of right wing group Sanatan Sanstha and plotting an attack on the Sunburn Festival with crude bombs.
The Maharashtra's Anti-Terrorism Squad found eight crude bombs in Raut's house while 12 crude bombs were recovered from a godown along with a diary which detailed his planning and preparation for crude bombs.
However, a division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse granted bail to Raut mainly on grounds of parity with other co-accused and prolonged incarceration of five years since the trial against him wouldn't conclude anytime soon.
Land Acquisition | Bombay High Court Directs Over Rs. 1.6 Crore Interest to Landowner As Compensation Not Deposited Before Taking Possession
Case Title: Hatim Fidaali Rajkotwala and Anr. v. Land Acquisition Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 472
The Bombay High Court held that landowners are entitled to interest on the compensation amount if the compensation is not paid or deposited before the acquiring body takes possession of the property.
A division bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice MM Sathaye directed the Collector, Mumbai City, to pay interest to the tune of Rs. 1.6 Crores for acquisition of two properties in Bhendi Bazaar, Mumbai.
The court directed the Collector to pay interest to the Petitioners at a rate of 9 percent per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15 percent per annum from the start of the second year until the actual payment, which was made on October 20, 2022.
The court allowed two writ petitions seeking interest on the compensation awarded to the petitioners under section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act).
Case Title: Dr. Kamal Chandra Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 473
The Bombay High Court ordered compensation of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to one Dr. Kamal Chandra Tiwari, an Assistant Professor at the National Defence Academy, Pune falsely prosecuted for producing fake disability certificates.
A division bench of Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice RN Laddha ordered the compensation to be recovered from the salary of the police officer who filed a chargesheet despite being informed by the hospital that records of the disability certificates had been found.
The court observed that despite receiving a communication from Sassoon Hospital on September 9, 2016, confirming the availability of the original record, Pagare did not reexamine the case. The doctors' statements were obtained before the original records were located; the court noted.
The court acknowledged the officer's apology, but emphasized that his actions caused mental agony, compromised Tiwari's dignity, and constituted a malicious prosecution.
Case Title: Ramkali Dayakisan Gupta & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 474
The Bombay High Court took a dig at the Centre's dichotomous approach in often blaming Courts for restricting its “ease of doing business” on one hand and repeatedly seeking adjournments of cases on the other.
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata observed,
“We are equally mindful, and we are constrained to say this, that we are no strangers to repeated assertions from the Union Government itself regarding pendency of cases, mounting arrears, frequent adjournments and impediments allegedly caused by our Courts to what the Government calls 'the ease of doing business'.”
The court said despite these claims by the government it often sought adjournments needlessly.
“Conveniently overlooked in all these assertions is the fact that it is the Government that is by far the largest litigant, and it is the Government that most often seeks adjournments, frequently needlessly. This case is an example.”
Case Title: Bachpan Bachao Andolan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 475
The Bombay High Court flagged the collective pendency of over 40,051 cases before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) while hearing a PIL by an NGO.
The division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Manjusha Deshpande observed that the startling numbers were nullifying the spirit if the Juvenile Justice Act 2015.
“…the figures of 10,008 cases pending before the Juvenile Justice Board and 30,043 cases pending before the Child Welfare Committee would amount to nullifying of spirit of the Act.”
Case Title: Dr. Mahendra Vilas Phalke And Ors vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 476
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to at least 17 doctors and directed the Maharashtra Government to reinstate them in government hospitals till they complete 60 years of age. The order, however, would be subject to the final outcome of the petition.
The doctors alleged they were forcefully relieved from their services of 30-35 years owing to the misinterpretation of a 2022 government notification.
Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 specified the retirement age of government servants such as the Petitioners as 58 years. However, owing to the dearth of Medical officers, the Public Health Department issued a resolution on August 29, 2018 and decided to extend the age of retirement to 60 years. It was further resolved that an amendment would be made to the Rules. The amendment finally came to effect on February 23, 2023. However, the proviso in the said notification said its effect will be only till May 31, 2023 which resulted in such doctors being relieved from their respective posts.
Case Title: Mohammed Atiq Ibrahim Ansari v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 477
Bombay High Court appointed a three-member panel to preview the film “I Killed Bapu” to check for objectionable material or any other material with the potential of seriously threatening societal disharmony.
A bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Firdosh Pooniwalla appointed a committee comprising Chief Justices (Retd) Amjad Sayed, Justice Abhay Thipsay and veteran actor/director Amol Palekar to review the film and submit their report.
“We request the panel to take a preview of the film “ I Killed Bapu” at the place suggested by them and consider whether the film has any such objectionable material or has any potential of seriously threatening societal disharmony and submit its report accordingly to this court, within a period of two weeks of the preview taken by panel, which report shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides,” the order stated.
Case Title: Lalit S/o Nandlal Bais v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 478
Women dancing provocatively in skimpy clothes or making gestures are not “obscene” or “immoral” acts which could annoy someone, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench held.
A division bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and Valmiki Menezes quashed an FIR against five men accused under Section 294 (obscenity) of the IPC and under sections of the Maharashtra Police Act for indecency in public and the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.
The police filed an FIR after conducting a raid at the Banquet Hall of a Resort and Water Park where six women were allegedly found dancing in short skirts and the applicants were showering money on them. Both men and women were booked in the case.
“We are of the considered opinion that the acts of the Accused Nos.13 to 18 (female dancers) referred to in the complaint/FIR, namely wearing short skirts, dancing provocatively or making gestures that the Police Officials consider obscene cannot be termed to be per se obscene acts, which could cause annoyance to any member of the public.”
Case Title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 479
The Bombay High Court observed that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not meant to discourage victims from registering complaints due to the fear that they may be prosecuted for false evidence if the prosecution fails to prove its case.
Justice MS Karnik, while quashing a complaint against father of a minor victim booked for giving false evidence, observed –
“The object of the POCSO Act is to ensure justice to the victims who have suffered the offence...The purpose is to obligate reporting of cases and recording of offences and not to discourage victims with a sword of a prosecution hanging over them in case the prosecution is not successful in establishing the offence against the accused person/s. Section 22 provides for punishment for false complaint or false information. The present is not a case of making false complaint or providing false information. This is a case where the prosecution failed to prove the offence against the accused.”
The court held that merely victim and her father turning hostile in a case under the POCSO Act does not mean that they gave false evidence and are liable to be prosecuted under section 22 (punishment for false complaint or false information) of the Act, as there can be many reasons for a victim's change in stance.
Case Title: Ravindra Dattaram Waikar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 480
The Bombay High Court dismissed a plea filed by Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) group MLA Ravindra Waikar alleging gross discrimination in allocation of Maharashtra Local Development Funds assigned to the Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and Members of the Legislative Council (MLC).
The MLD funds are meant for MLAs and MLCs to develop their respective constituencies are disbursed through the District Planning Commission by the State of Maharashtra.
The division bench comprising Justices Sunil Shukre and Rajesh Patil pronounced the order.
"We have found there is no sufficient material for us to test to fairness of the government's decision to allocate funds," it said.
Since the issue raised pertains to the administrative powers of the state, it can only be examined on Wednesbury's principle of "unreasonableness," the court said.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 481
The Bombay High Court appointed the paternal aunt of a four-year-old boy as his legal guardian while allowing his parents to visit him frequently and occasionally take him for outings with the condition that the child returns to his aunt's custody on the same day.
Justice RI Chagla observed that the child is extremely attached to his aunt and took note of the psychological issues faced by his mother as well as the aggressive behaviour of his father while granting custody of the child to his aunt.
Case Title: Mukesh Rajaram Chaudhari v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 482
The Bombay High Court held that an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 would not become entitled to bail merely because samples sent for forensic analysis were not drawn in front of a magistrate.
Justice MS Karnik refused bail to a man arrested for allegedly possessing commercial quantity of Codeine observing that the stringent conditions for bail under section 37 would continue to apply even if procedure prescribed under section 52A for drawing samples is not followed.
“At the stage when the court is concerned with the question of granting or refusing bail, this cannot be the sole consideration. It may be one of the relevant considerations but cannot be the sole consideration on the basis of which the moment it is shown that the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act is not followed, the accused automatically becomes entitled to bail as a matter of right. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would continue to apply”, the court held.
Case Title: Sandip Sundarrao Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 483
While quashing a rape and causing miscarriage without consent case, the Bombay High Court imposed cost of Rs. 25000 on a woman who consented to quashing of the case admitting that she had voluntarily terminated her pregnancy.
A division bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudessai and Justice NR Borkar observed that there is no prima facie case of rape under false promise of marriage as she had been married while having physical relations with the accused. The records indicated that she consented to the termination of pregnancy, the court further noted.
Case Title: Bhushan s/o. Sangappa Chaudhari v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 484
The Bombay High Court refused to reinstate the college admission of a student who failed to submit a Caste Validity Certificate on time due to a delay by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in processing his application.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla explained that the fixation of specific dates as deadlines for students was a matter of policy, and the court could only direct authorities to relax the policy when necessary to protect fundamental rights or rectify illegalities. In this case, there was no such necessity.
“…it would be not appropriate on the part of this Court to direct the authorities to restore the admission of the Petitioner on the ground that there was no fault on his part in submitting the Validity Certificate on or before the last date fixed for that purpose”,
The court also held that time frame prescribed in Rule 18(5) of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 to process the applications is directory, not mandatory.
Case Title: Satyaseelan Kuttappan v. PP Sudhakaran and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 485
The Bombay High Court held that an unregistered partnership firm can be made an accused in a cheque dishonour case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
Justice Anil Pansare of the Nagpur bench observed that the status of registration of the partnership firm is irrelevant on proceedings for cheque dishonour under the NI Act.
“registration or non-registration of the partnership firm will have no bearing insofar as Section 141 of the Act of 1881 is concerned. The provision under Section 141 of the Act of 1881 makes it mandatory to arraign the company or the firm, as the case may be, as party accused in the complaint. This provision or any other provision of the Act of 1881 does not put embargo on making unregistered partnership firm an accused”, the court held.
Case Title: Play Games 24X7 Pvt. Ltd. Vs Loran Leasing And Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 486
Owner filing a suit for damages from his licensee cannot be the only defense to the admitted liability of refunding a licensee's security deposit, the Bombay High Court held while refusing to grant a company unconditional leave to defend a summary suit.
Justice Kamal Khata directed the owner of a 17,196 sq ft premises in Mumbai - Loran Leasing and Infotech Pvt.- to deposit the entire security deposit of over Rs. 90 lakh along with 18% interest in court and only then defend the suit filed by licensee Play Games 24X7 Pvt. Ltd.
If the defendant Loran fails to pay the amount, Play Games would be entitled to apply for an ex-parte decree against Loran, the court ordered.
“In the present case the defence is everything else but genuine or based on good faith… It is amply clear that the Defendant seeks to recover damages and compensation from the Plaintiff in its own suit which certainly cannot be a defence to the admitted liability of refunding the security deposit,” the court said.
Case Title: Parvi Ashish Chakravarti v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 457
Merely displaying Jesus Christ's picture in the house wouldn't mean a person has converted and become a Christian, the Bombay High Court at Nagpur said while taking strong exception to the Caste Scrutiny Committee's rejection of a 17-year-old's 'Scheduled Caste' claim.
“No sane man will accept or believe that merely because there is a photograph of Jesus Christ in the house would ipso facto mean that a person had converted himself into Christianity,” Justices Prithviraj Chavan and Urmila Joshi Phalke observed while allowing the petition.
The bench warned the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (DCCSC) for ignoring pre-constitution public documents of the petitioner belonging to the 'Mahar' caste as also all the Buddhist rituals followed by the family for generations.
Case Title: Baramati Agro Ltd. v. Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 488
The Bombay High Court set aside an order of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB)'s directing closure of a distillery owned by Baramati Agro Ltd, a sugar firm controlled by NCP MLA Rohit Pawar.
Justices Nitin Jamdar and Manjusha Deshpande remanded the matter back to the MPCB for fresh consideration.
The Board overlooked various important factors like the principle of proportionality, the court said.
“To conclude, the Board, while taking the impugned decision in an expedited manner, has overlooked various important factors, such as the Petitioner's second reply, the Enforcement Policy, and the principle of proportionality. The Board had to consider aspects such as the extent of violations, degree of environmental threats, the option of setting compliance timelines, and the possibility of alternative deterrent measures. Neither the impugned order nor the reply affidavit show that a considered decision-making process was adopted before taking the decision,” the court said and remanded the matter back.
Case Title: Faaiz Anwar Qureshi v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 489
The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition seeking a complete ban on Indian citizens, companies, and associations from engaging Pakistani artists, including actors, singers, musicians, lyricists, and technicians.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla observed that the petition is a “retrograde step in promoting cultural harmony, unity and peace, and has no merit in it.”
“A person who is good at heart would welcome in his country any activity which promotes peace, harmony, and tranquility within the country and across the border, Arts, music, sports, culture, dance and so on are the activities which rise above nationalities, cultures and nations and truly bring about peace, tranquility, unity and harmony in nation and between nations”, the court observed.
Case Title: Nilesh s/o Ajinath Udmale, v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 490
The Bombay High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 on Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad to a PhD Entrance Test (PET) topper who was not assigned a research guide before expiry of his PET result and was denied admission as a consequence.
A division bench of Justice Mangesh S Patil and Justice Shailesh P Brahme sitting at Aurangabad deprecated the university for not verifying the number of vacancies with the research guide of Fine Arts subject before inviting PhD applications.
However, the court said that while allotment of the petitioner to a research guide from another subject in the category of inter-disciplinary studies is permissible, it cannot be done after the expiration of the result's validity. The court ultimately dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, citing the expiry of his result.
Case Title: Dr. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 491
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur quashed Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 which prescribed two members from the State bureaucracy and only one member from the judiciary on the Selection Committee that recommends appointment of the President and member-judges to the State and District Consumer Commissions.
The division bench comprising Justices Atul Chandurkar and Vrushali Joshi observed the rule was “diluting the involvement of the judiciary” and the “lack of judicial dominance” was in “contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers and also an encroachment on the judicial domain.”
The court further quashed Rule 10(2) to the extent it prescribed only a four-year tenure for members instead of five and additionally found the advertisement issued by Maharashtra's Department of Consumer Affairs for recruitment to be without jurisdiction for one of the two written papers.
As Rule 6(1) was struck down, the court consequently set aside the notifications issued in June this year constituting the selection committees.
Case Title: Aarti w/o Santosh Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 492
The Bombay High Court held that the election of Sarpanch/Upa-Sarpanch must be conducted by secret ballot even if just one panchayat member present at the meeting requests election through secret ballot election instead of show of hands.
Justice Kishore C Sant of the Aurangabad Bench held that the method of conducting election cannot be decided by the majority opinion.
“It is, therefore, provided necessary that even if one person asks for secret ballot instead of voting by show of hands, it needs to be held in that way. Whether to hold election by secret ballot or show of hands cannot be let to the will of the majority. The Presiding Officer in this case decided to take voting by show of hands by recording that the majority of the voters demanded voting by show of hands and has committed the error”, the court held.
The court upheld orders setting aside the Upa Sarpanch election of a village conducted by show of hands despite a panchayat member's request for a secret ballot.
Admission Fees Paid To Club Towards Corporate Membership Is 'Revenue' In Nature: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Swiss Re Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 493
The Bombay High Court held that the admission fees paid to a club towards corporate membership are wholly and exclusively for business purposes, and the same are revenue-generating in nature.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Rajesh S. Patil also observed that the expenditure incurred towards entrance fees and annual membership would be a "revenue expenditure" because it has been incurred wholly and exclusively for business and not towards the capital account.
Such expenditure only facilitates the smooth and efficient running of the business enterprise and does not add to the profit-making apparatus of the business enterprise, the bench added.
The bench made this observation while dealing with a Writ petition filed by the petitioner/assessee (Swiss Re Services India Pvt. Ltd) which received a reassessment notice stating that there were reasons to believe that the petitioner's income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The petitioner was directed to file a return of income, which the petitioner did. The petitioner was provided with reasons to believe there was an escape of income. The reasons to believe were the entrance and subscription fees to Willington Sports Club (WSC).
Case Title: Film Farm India Pvt Ltd v. ALT Digital Media Entertainment Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 494
The Bombay High Court refused to enforce an award of the Western India Film Producers' Association (WIFPA) directing Balaji Telefilms' OTT unit ALTT to pay Rs. 1,57,00,000/- to makers of the web series “Mentalhood”.
Justice SM Modak held that the decision of the Disputes Settlement Committee of WIFPA cannot be enforced as an arbitral award in the absence of an arbitration agreement between parties of the dispute, if one of the parties is not a member of WIFPA.
Case Title: Dr. P. Varavara Rao v. National Investigation Agency and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 495
The Bombay High Court granted octogenarian Telugu poet Varavara Rao permission to travel to Hyderabad for seven days to undergo cataract surgery in one of his eyes.
Justices AS Gadkari and Shyam Chandak further asked Rao to seek permission afresh from the trial court to undergo surgery for the other eye.
Rao had approached High Court in November 2022 against the Special NIA's court order refusing permission.
The poet is facing allegations under the UAPA over alleged Maoist links. The Supreme Court on August 10 2022 had granted him permanent medical bail but constrained him to stay within the limits of the city of Greater Mumbai. The court however, granted him liberty to approach the concerned NIA court for permission to go to Hyderabad.
Case Title: Indumati Borse v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 496
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition by a 90-year-old woman seeking removal of a statue of Maharshi Dhondo Keshav Karve, a reformer and Bharat Ratna recipient, installed by the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) near her property.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata stated that a memorial or a monument is sufficiently a public purpose, which need not only be a public utility, and the petitioner did not show that installation of statues by a public body is forbidden.
Case Title: Sameer Baijanath Joshi v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 497
The Bombay High Court held that redevelopment of an existing permanent structure near Signal Transmitting Station, Juhu, is allowed as long as the redeveloped structure adheres to the limit of 15.24 meters height specified in a 1976 notification issued under the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (WoD Act).
The signal transmitting station in Juhu is a pre-World War II military installation for wireless communication. Several redevelopment projects in Juhu have been halted due to the Army's objection to construction near it.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla paved way for redevelopment of Mumbai's Chandan Cinema situated near the Signal Transmitting Station which was held up due to denial of no objection certificate (NOC) by the military authorities.
Case Title: Zakir Yusuf Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 498
Observing that mere cancellation of return flight tickets is not a suspicious activity, the Bombay High Court discharged a man accused of conspiring to illegally transport two children to USA on forged immigration documents.
Justice Bharati Dangre observed that allegations against the accused, one Zakir Yusuf Shaikh, do not show his knowledge of the conspiracy, and in the absence of sufficient material against him, the trial would be an empty formality.
The court quashed the order of the Sessions court refusing to discharge the accused from the case. The man was booked for allegedly buying or disposing of any person as a slave, cheating and forgery, under sections 370, 419, 420, 465, 468, and 471, read with section 120B of the IPC.
Custodian Of Enemy Property Cannot Halt Project On Land Not Vested In Him: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt Ltd v. Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 499
The Custodian of Enemy Properties doesn't have the power to issue prohibitory orders against any land parcel suspected to be an 'enemy property' until the Custodian is vested with the property under the Enemy Properties Act, 1968 the Bombay High Court held.
Properties owned by Pakistani Nationals and acquired by the Indian government are known as 'enemy properties.'
A division bench comprising Justices Sunil Shukre and Rajesh Patil quashed all communications issued by the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property directing the Tehsildar and Collector to Mira- Bhayander Municipal Corporation, to issue stop work notices to a development project undertaken by Neelkamal Realtors.
Case Title: Partha Sarathy Sarkar v Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 500
The Bombay High Court bench, comprising Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice M.M. Sathaye, while adjudicating a petition filed in Partha Sarathy Sarkar v Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) & Ors., has stayed the Suspension Order issued against an Insolvency Professional (“IP”) by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”). The Inspection Order issued by IBBI against the IP was signed by Assistant General Manager alone, whereas, as per IBBI (Delegation of Powers and Functions) Order, 2017, any action, inspection or investigation order has to be issued by the Executive Director of IBBI. As per the IBBI (Delegation of Powers and Functions) Order, 2017, any action, inspection or investigation order has to be issued by the Executive Director of IBBI. The Bench noted that prima facie the Inspection Order was signed by the Assistant General Manager in place of the Executive Director.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 501
The Bombay High Court refused to grant bail on medical grounds to Housing Development Infrastructure Ltd (HDIL) promoter Rakesh Wadhawan who is booked in the multi crore Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative (PMC) Bank loan fraud case and lodged in Arthur Road Central Prison, Mumbai.
Rakesh Wadhawan and his son Sarang face allegations of fraudulently obtaining loans of Rs 2,558 crore from PMC Bank and failing to repay the due amount of Rs. 4,435 crores including interest.
Justice Bharati Dangre observed that the recommendations from doctors did not indicate an urgent need for any specific medical procedure or surgery and that the prescribed course of treatment was primarily medication and management.
Case Title: Appasaheb Pandurang Yadav (Deceased) Through his legal heir v. Appasaheb Virupaksh Tandale
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 502
After a legal battle spanning nearly four decades, the Bombay High Court brought an end to a dispute involving ten rounds of litigation between the owner of agricultural land and his tenants regarding payment of accumulated rent of Rs. Rs. 3,15,250.
Justice Sandeep V Marne refused to condone a delay of over one and a half years by the tenants in filing an appeal against the Tehsildar's 2018 order, which directed them to pay rent accumulated since 1985 to the landlord within three months. The court, despite acknowledging that this length of delay is typically not considered inordinate, deemed it immaterial in the present case.
"The issue is whether the landlord can be hauled in endless rounds of meritless litigations… Public policy demands that a quietus needs to be given to litigation between the parties in the present case. This is a reason why this court went into merits of the contentions that Petitioners wish to argue before SDO," the court stated.
The court noted that ordinarily, while deciding the issue of condonation of delay, it would not have gone into the merits of the case. However, the court decided to verify whether any merit exists in the tenants' appeal before the SDO and concluded that the tenants did not have an arguable case.
Case Title: Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 503
Observing that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) was granted for the construction and not the builder, the Bombay High Court directed the Indian Airforce authorities to reconsider a builder's application for revalidation of NOC for construction of a building near the IAF Airfield in Pune.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla refuted the IAF authorities' objection that the NOC was initially issued to another builder and, in absence of any provision of transfer in the NOC, the new builder needed to apply for a fresh NOC.
The court further held that the restrictions on constructions near the NDA Aerodrome introduced in the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Height Restrictions for Safeguarding of Aircraft Operations) Rules, 2015 would not be enforceable on constructions approved under a 2010 IAF Notification whose construction began within 5 years of the issuance of the NOC.
Case Title: Sanjay Nathmal Jain v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 504
The Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra Crime Investigation Department to investigate five police officers under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC wherein tenants' premises were demolished while they were allegedly illegally detained at the local police station and coerced into surrendering their tenancy.
Justice RM Joshi at the Aurangabad bench held the police's acts were not in discharge of their duties and therefore no Sanction u/s 197 of the CrPC was required to prosecute them.
The High Court dismissed a clutch of petitions by the original landlord's bother, purchasers of the property and the police officers challenging an order of a Sessions judge directing CID investigation and registration of FIR u/s 156(3) of the CrPC.
Case Title: Sunil Shishupal Nayak v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 505
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man accused of possession of commercial quantity of 'Charas' under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) after the weight of Charas seized from him supposedly reduced in police custody.
The prosecution claimed that the weight of Charas at the time of seizure was 1 kg and 10 grams. However, when presented before the magistrate for inventory, it weighed 1 kg only.
The court held that since the contraband seized from Nayak weighed 1 kg at the time of inventory before the Magistrate, qualifying as an intermediate quantity, the strict conditions for bail under section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply.
The court clarified that whether the weight at the time of seizure or the weight before the Magistrate during inventory has to be considered for determining guilt of the accused will be decided at the time of trial.
S.304(A) IPC - Bombay High Court Quashes Death By Negligence Case Against Shopkeeper After 4-Yr-Old Victim's Family Consents
Case Title: Anandraj Manikam v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 506
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR registered against a shopkeeper and his employee for allegedly causing a 4-year-old's death by negligence (304A IPC) after the child's family consented to the quashing on humanitarian grounds.
A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh granted relief to shopkeeper Anandraj Manikam on the condition he would deposit Rs. 25,000 with the Advocate's Association of Western India Generation Next Fund.
It was the prosecutions case that on 16th May 2023 when the complainant's 4-year-old daughter visited the shop for purchasing chips, she clinged to the glass counter which collapsed and fell on her. She passed away while undergoing treatment.
Case Title: Nikhil Ashokrao Waghmare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 507
Observing that the investigating officer's role is not just to strengthen the prosecution's case but to unearth the truth, the Bombay High Court held that the investigating agency cannot refuse to go through material submitted by the accused if it is relevant to the case.
A division bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice MW Chandwani sitting at Nagpur judgment directed the police to consider certain printouts of WhatsApp chats submitted by the accused during its investigation in a cruelty and suicide abetment case.
“No doubt, the investigating officer shall be given complete and full freedom to carry the investigation in accordance with law. The material which is sought to be produced by the accused may or may not help the investigating agency, but, it is totally unacceptable that he shall not look into the same. We do not see any provision of law which precludes the investigating officer to go through the material if he finds it relevant and germane to arrive at the truth”, the court held.
Case Title: Manik Chandru Deokar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 508
The Bombay High Court held that project affected persons are allotted alternate land on humanitarian grounds and the State cannot impose any condition on the allotment that may lead to loss of the land. The court said that such a condition would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
“The object and purpose in rehabilitating a person like the Petitioner by allotting him the alternate land in lieu of his land being acquired for a public project is purely on special and humanitarian considerations and not merely to compensate him as in a normal case of land acquisition…This would certainly not contemplate imposing of a condition which would take away the benefits of such rehabilitation, and in fact would subject such person to a coercive taking away of the alternate land allotted to him”, the court held.
A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain set aside an order cancelling the allotment of alternate land to a 78-year-old project affected person on the ground that he did not fulfil the condition of constructing a house on the land within a year of the allotment.
Case Title: Matrix Publicities and Media India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 16(1), Mumbai & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 509
The Bombay High Court stated that system default is the standard excuse of the department when it comes to giving refunds.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that the excuse used is that the system under the control of the Centralized Processing Center (CPC), Bangalore, has some issues and, therefore, amounts are not being released to assessees. Interest is payable by law until the date of refund, and the Department does not realize that it is public money that is used to pay interest. That is a waste and a burden on the exchequer.
Case Title: Bapu Bajarang Patil v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 510
The Bombay High Court modified the sentence of a man convicted of murdering his wife from “life imprisonment for the entire remaining of his life” to “imprisonment for life” citing the importance of adhering to the wording adopted in section 302 of the IPC.
A division bench of Justice VV Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S Waghwase sitting at Aurangabad observed that the trial judge went overboard in sentencing the convict to life imprisonment for the entire remaining of his life.
“It is rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that learned Trial Judge has gone overboard by imposing sentence of suffering life imprisonment till natural death. Very recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 247 has held that “Sessions Court is not empowered to extend tenure of imprisonment beyond what is provided in the Statute”. Punishment prescribed for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC has not been amended or enhanced. Wordings used in the Statute are required to be adopted”, the court stated.
Case Title: Chandralok People Welfare Association v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 511
The Bombay High Court allowed tenants to reconstruct their demolished premises under Section 499 (6) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act sans the landlord's permission, and recover costs from him in the absence of a redevelopment plan within a year of demolition.
However, the division bench comprising Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata clarified that the tenants wouldn't be entitled to redevelop the premises and occupy flats on ownership basis. Meaning the tenants would continue to remain tenants after reconstruction.
“The [tenants] association must make its own arrangements for financing the reconstruction. We have only affirmed their statutory right to reconstruction and the MCGM (BMC)'s obligation to permit it without requiring the prior consent of [the landlord].”
Case Title: Kiran P. Pawar v. Bata India Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 512
The Bombay High Court awarded compensation ranging from 19.5 lakhs to 33 lakhs to seven former salesmen of shoe company Bata who were terminated in 2007 after refusing to adhere to modified roster for operating showrooms seven days a week with extended hours.
Justice Sandeep V Marne observed that they were terminated without any enquiry but refused to reinstate them observing that 16 years have elapsed since their termination, and they may not be able to discharge duties as salesman effectively. The court awarded a compensation of 75 percent of the back wages for last 16 years.
The court considered the various duties and responsibilities outlined in the standing orders and regulations formulated by Bata, outlining the diverse tasks assigned to the salesmen, including customer service, preparation of cash memo, stock management, cash handling, administrative duties, quality control, and other shop-related responsibilities. The court concluded that these multifaceted duties indicate that the salesmen can be considered "workmen" under the provisions of the ID Act.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 513
The Bombay High Court held that a father cannot be held guilty of kidnapping for taking his minor child away from the mother unless there is an order of a competent court preventing him from taking custody of the child.
A division bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes sitting at Nagpur quashed an FIR registered under Sections 363 of the IPC by the biological mother of the child, accusing the father of forcibly taking away their 3-year-old son.
“The father of a child will not come within the scope of section of 361 of the IPC, even if he takes away the child from the keeping of the mother, she may be a lawful guardian as against any other except the father or any other person who has been appointed as a legal guardian by virtue of an order of the Competent Court. So long there is no divestment of the rights of the guardianship of a father, he cannot be guilty of an offence under Section 361 of the IPC”, the court held.
Case Title: Abhishek Pictures v. Abhishek Agarwal Arts LLP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 514
The High Court of Bombay held that a party cannot be allowed to take advantage of inartistic or poor drafting of an arbitration clause as long as the clause contains the necessary ingredients and the intention to arbitrate is clear.
The bench of Justice Manish Pitale also held that a Court exercising power under Section 9 of the A&C Act would be within its power to scrutinize and decide as to whether the arbitration clause is valid in law.
The Court also held that while interpreting terms of an agreement, the Court has to adopt a view that supports all the covenants of the agreement and not one that renders one or more clauses nugatory.
Case Title: Amar S. Mulchandani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 515
An accused in custody in one case can seek anticipatory bail in another case under Section 438 of the CrPC, the Bombay High Court held and granted pre-arrest bail to an accused in a forgery case.
“I am impelled to hold that the fact that the applicant is already in custody in one case does not preclude him from seeking prearrest bail in connection with another case in which he apprehends arrest,” Justice NJ Jamadar held.
The judge relied on the High Court's views in Alnesh Akil Somji V/s. State of Maharashtra which held that an earlier judgement of the SC in Narinderjit Singh Sahni and Anr. V/s. Union of India and Ors. does not hold in very clear terms that a person arrested in one offence was barred from seeking anticipatory bail in another offence.
Case Title: Municipal Commissioner Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Ashish Laxman Chavan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 516
The Bombay High Court held that employees posted in the Octroi department of a Municipal Corporation do not have any right to receive commission (Mushahira) on compromise fee collected by the department from Octroi evaders.
Justice Sandeep V Marne observed that the employees cannot demand commission for performing their duties of apprehending evading vehicles and collecting Octroi.
“The employees of Octroi Department perform their duties in apprehending vehicles evading Octroi. For performing their duties, they cannot demand any incentives in the form of commission on the Octroi so collected…no right is vested in the employee of Octroi Department of the Municipal Corporation to claim any amount towards Mushahira from the Municipal Corporation”, the court held.
Case Title: Meerabai W/o Dnyaneshwar Chatare v. Returning Officer to the Election
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 517
The Bombay High Court held that merely stating that the Electronic Voting Machine had a defect would not invalidate an election in absence of proof that this defect materially influenced the outcome of the election.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi sitting at Nagpur refused to quash election of a Sarpanch who won by one vote in a plea challenging the election on the ground that the EVM recorded one vote less than the number of votes cast.
Case Title: Azizur Rehman Gulam v. Radio Restaurant
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 518
The High Court of Bombay held that an appeal to challenge an arbitral award cannot be on entirely new grounds. It held that grounds which were not taken before the Court under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot be taken in appeal.
The bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S. Doctor held that an arbitration award cannot be challenged on afresh grounds that were never taken before. It held that such a course would not just be in teeth of the settled position of law but would also disturb the entire scheme of the arbitration act.
The Court also held that under Section 37(1)(c) of the A&C Act, it is only the order of the Court under Section 34 against which the appeal is maintainable, therefore, the challenge must be to the order of the Court and not to mere award.
Case Title: Swashray Co-op. Housing Society Ltd v. Shanti Enterprises
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 519
The High Court of Bombay held that a Court exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act can grant mandatory injunction at an interim stage when the builder is found to be in multiple breaches which results in the co-operative society losing its confidence in the builder.
The bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that the relief of mandatory injunction at an interim stage is an extraordinary relief which ought not be granted in every case, however, the Court would not withhold such a relief it withholding such an injunction would be unjust and unconscionable.
The Court also remarked that in builder-co-operative society disputes, the members of the society cannot be left at the mercy of the builder and the Court must protect the interest of those members when the builder is found to be in multiple breaches such as failure to complete the construction work on time, failure to pay transit rent, brokerage, transportation and hardship compensation.
The Court held that in such a situation, the society cannot be forced to get the redevelopment work done through such a builder and it would have the right to get the work done through a new developer.
Case Title: Dnyaneshwar Eknath Gulhane v. Vinod Ramchandra Lokhande
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 520
Observing that there is no scientific method to determine age of the ink in a document, the Bombay High Court set aside sessions court order allowing an ink-age test by a handwriting expert on a disputed cheque in a cheque dishonour case.
Justice Anil L Pansare of the Nagpur bench, in a writ petition challenging the sessions court order, relied on the expert opinion recorded by the Madras High Court in 2010 confirming the absence of a definitive scientific method to assess the age of handwriting accurately.
Case Title: National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 521
The Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of enhanced punishment in Maharashtra for assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging duty.
The Code of Criminal Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2017 enhanced the maximum punishment under section 353 from two years to five years and made the offence triable before the sessions court instead of a magistrate.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor disposed of the petition in light of state government resolution forming a committee to consider all aspects of section 353.
Case Title: Naresh Goyal v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 522
Refusing relief to Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal in the money laundering case, the Bombay High Court held that the Supreme Court's recent judgement in Pankaj Bansal's case on giving the accused a physical copy of the grounds of arrest would apply only prospectively.
In a habeas corpus plea filed through his wife, Goyal contended he was not provided the Grounds of Arrest in writing under section 19(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), violating his rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Further, the Sessions Judge authorised his detention without recording reasons for such detention.
A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse noted that Goyal was arrested on September 1, a month prior to the SC judgement interpreting Section 19 of PMLA.
While the Enforcement Directorate may not have given Goyal a physical copy of the grounds of arrest but he was shown the grounds of arrest. He signed the document maintained by the ED, court noted in its order.
Bombay High Court Quashes FAO Order Passed After Two Years Of DRP Direction Against Vodafone Idea
Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited v. CPC
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 523
The Bombay High Court held that the assessment order dated August 31, 2023, passed by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) two years after the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions, is time-barred and cannot be sustained.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale strongly recommended that a detailed inquiry be initiated on the failure on the part of the Faceless Assessing Officer concerned to act in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the lack of diligence on the part of officials concerned and the system itself insofar as it relates to the present assessment. Strict action should be taken against persons responsible for the laxity and lethargy displayed, which have caused a huge loss to the exchequer and, in turn, to the citizens of this country.
Give Laptops/iPads To Prosecutors For Effective Implementation Of E-Filing System: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Mangal Ramsurat Singh v. State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 524
The Bombay High Court sought intervention of Advocate General of Maharashtra Dr. Birendra Saraf to ensure that necessary infrastructure is available to implement the e-filing system effectively.
Justice MS Karnik observed that providing laptops to prosecutors is essential for effective implementation of e-filing mechanism.
“To make the mechanism of E-fling efective, it is absolutely essential that learned APPs are provided with the facility of laptops/Ipads at the earliest…Learned Advocate General is requested to look into the matter and bring this to the notice of the concerned department of the State Government for facilitating the required infrastructure for this purpose”, the court stated.
The court was dealing with a bail application which the counsel for the applicant has filed through the e-filing mechanism.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 525
Observing that lawyers at the bar were required to be sensitive to the heavy load of matters heard by Family Court Judges daily, the Bombay High Court dismissed a woman's plea seeking directions to the Family Court to decide her execution petition filed in 2022 within a month.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh imposed cost of Rs. 15,000 on the woman noting one month was an “unreasonable” time period.
“The bar is required to be sensitive to the fact that, it is well known that on the board of the Family Court, there are at least 60 to 70 matters listed every day… Without being sensitive to this fact, an application has been moved for deciding the matter of the year 2022 within a period of one month.”
The woman, a UK citizen, informed the HC that she approached the Family Court in December 2022, seeking execution of an order passed by the Royal High Courts, London, in October 2021. The father wasn't complying with his undertaking to grant her 50% access to her sons, despite one child being diagnosed with ADHD.
While the Royal High Court decided her custody plea in just six months, the execution plea continues to remain pending.
Case Title: Hasmukh Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 526
The Bombay High Court held that re-opening is not permissible as it clearly falls within the purview of a 'change of opinion' which is impermissible in law.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that the basis on which the AO issued notice alleging that there was "information" that suggests escapement of income was an internal audit objection. Information is explained in Section 148 of the Act to mean "any objection raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India..." and no one else. It itself makes the reopening of assessments impermissible.
Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Raj Thackeray For Disobeying Public Servant In 2010
Case Title: Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 527
The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray alleging disobeying an order of a public servant by overstaying in Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation area ahead of civic elections held in 2010.
According to the FIR Thackeray was supposed to complete campaigning in the Kalyan and Dombivali area by September 29, 2010, in accordance with a circular issued by the State Election Commission (SEC).
Based on the circular, the Deputy Commissioner of Police issued a notice to Thackeray and asked him not to stay within KDMC area beyond 10 pm, that year. The notice said he couldn't visit any political party office, residence, hotel, lodges, guest houses and in case of violation, he may face prosecution under the section 126 of the Representation of Peoples Act.
A division bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Sharmila U Deshmukh observed –
“the notice issued to the Applicant under Section 149 of Cr.P.C does not constitute an order duly promulgated and as such, no offence under Section 188 of IPC is made out. Admittedly, as cognisance was taken of the offence without any written complaint being filed, the prosecution stands vitiated being barred under Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C.”
Case Title: High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own Motion v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 528
The Bombay High Court reduced the window during which bursting of firecrackers is permitted in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region to 8 PM – 10 PM in view of previous order of the Supreme Court in Arjun Gopal v. Union of India passed on November 8, 2021.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice GS Kulkarni rapped the state government for responding late to the problem of air pollution and stressed that the responsibility of the civic authorities is not a favour but a duty towards the city's residents. The court also sought a statutory mechanism to curb air pollution.
The court urged the state to constitute a statutory commission for monitoring air quality in Mumbai along the lines of the Commission for Air Quality Management formed under the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021.
Under Section 12 of this Act, the Commission has wide powers to protect and enhance air quality in the NCR and neighbouring areas. The Commission can issue directives, coordinate actions among governments and authorities, and regulate or prohibit activities contributing to air pollution. The Commission tasked with initiating actions based on complaints, implementing national programs, identifying pollution sources, promoting research, raising awareness, and supporting NGOs and institutions. Further, it addresses stubble burning, monitors air-polluting agents, increases plantation, and can undertake additional functions as entrusted by committees or bodies dealing with air pollution issues.
Case Title: Sheezan Mohd. Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 529
Bombay High Court refused to quash an FIR against actor Sheezan Khan for allegedly abetting suicide of co-star Tunisha Sharma in December last year.
A division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh observed that an altercation between the Khan and Sharma in his make-up room just before her suicide is prima facie a direct act of incitement to commit suicide as he quarrelled with her knowing about her mental trauma.
Case Title: Ramona Pinto v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 530
The Bombay High Court held that, as per Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, assuming that there was a distribution of capital assets upon dissolution of the firm, it is the firm and not the partner who has to pay the tax.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale observed that the amount of Rs. 28 crores can be considered the amount received by a partner upon retirement from the firm and is not chargeable to tax.
In FY 2009–10, Justice S. P. Bharucha, Chief Justice of India (Retd.), serving as the only arbitrator, decided an arbitration judgment of Rs. 28 crore in favour of the assessee, resolving a dispute with her brother and other family members stemming from her late father's will. The dispute began in 2005 when the assessee learned that her brothers had reconstituted the firm and that she had retired in 1997. Despite this, the assessee insisted that she was still a partner, and the matter was sent to arbitration, where the assessee waived all of her rights against the firm in exchange for an upfront payment of Rs. 7 crore in 2009, with an additional Rs. 3 crore to be paid annually for a period of seven years.
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Proceedings Against Non-Existent Entity Despite Active PAN
Case Title: Diversey India Hygiene Private Limited v. ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 531
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment proceedings against non-existent entities despite an active PAN.
“PAN was not deactivated, which would not help the revenue because there could be cases relating to various years when the company was in existence, and it is possible those PAN numbers are picked up for scrutiny or for the issuance of a refund. That, in our view, will not be a sanction for the Department to issue notices to a non-existing entity, particularly when they were aware that the entity was not in existence,” the bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale stated.
The petitioner/assessee challenged a reassessment notice on the ground that all the notices had been issued to a non-existing entity. The notice, i.e., Diversey India Private Limited (DIPL), got amalgamated with the petitioner with effect from April 1, 2015. A letter dated May 12, 2016, was addressed to the Assessing Officer (AO) and Principal Commissioner, informing them about the amalgamation.
Case Title: Dr. Vijay Uma Shankar Mishra v. Commissioner, MCGM and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 532
The Bombay High Court appointed two lawyers practicing in the HC as Advocate Commissioners to ascertain the status of transit rent payment and the transit space available for drying clothes for the Washermen and Rassiholders of Dhobighat situated on Dr. E. Moses Road, Jacob Circle, Mumbai. These persons, operating on a heritage site, have been washing and drying clothes for over a century.
Considering the scarcity of space and modern technology, a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor in a PIL regarding the welfare of the washermen opined that in the building the Washermen/Rassiholders should be provided with mechanized facility for drying clothes.
S.306(4) CrPC | Bail Conditions Open For Approver Who Has Abided By All Conditions Of Pardon
Case Title: Danish Ali Jamaluddin Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 533
An approver who has complied with all conditions of pardon and deposed as a witness in the prosecution's favor need not remain incarcerated till the end of the trial and would be entitled to bail, especially in case of a protracted trial, the Bombay High Court held.
Justice MS Karnik observed that the bar under Section 306(4) of the CrPC against releasing an approver before conclusion of trial needs to be harmoniously construed with personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution.
“In my opinion, now that the applicant has complied with the conditions and has been examined as a prosecution witness before the Special Court, the fetters of the applicant's continuing in detention until the termination of the trial needs to be watered down.”
The court noted an approver is kept in custody during the trial to protect him from other accused in the case. This could now be achieved under the Witness Protection Act enacted in 2017 wherein it is State's responsibility to provide protection to a witness.
Case Title: Chandar Mahadev Naik v. Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 534
The Bombay High Court quashed the income tax assessments for the assessment year 2016-2017 against agriculturists and rickshaw drivers for improper sanction.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale relied on its earlier decision in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. The court held that the approval of the specified authority in terms of Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act is a jurisdictional requirement, and in the absence of complying with this requirement, the reopening of the assessment would fail.
The petitioners/assessee were the Agriculturist and rickshaw driver. The assessee challenged the income tax assessments for the assessment year 2016-2017 due to improper sanction under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In light of the invalid sanction, the court ruled that the notices issued were also invalid and had to be quashed. Furthermore, the court emphasised that any assessment orders passed subsequently based on an incorrect sanction would also need to be set aside.
Case Title: V Sridharan v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 535
The Bombay High Court stayed a notice by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) directing a practicing senior advocate at the HC - V Sridharan- to remove or demolish an alleged illegal merging of a niche area into his office space.
A division bench comprising Justice Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata noted neither was the advocate heard before the order was passed nor was any decision taken on the Society's plea to regularize the construction.
The bench specifically made prima facie observations regarding the selective approach of the BMC wherein owners of large-scale illegal constructions were merely served notices and alleged minor illegalities were dealt with an iron hand.
“…for the most minor irregularity, the entire machinery of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai(MCGM( is thrown at it with considerable aggression, but for anything that is on a larger scale, other than a stop work notice, nothing at all happens.
The court said the BMC's actions would have to be considered on Wednesbury's principle of unreasonableness.
Case Title: Ganesh Ramesh Chavan v. Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 536
The Bombay High Court has directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to provide specific information relied upon to issue the notice under Section 148A(B) of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale has quashed the assessment order and directed the JAO to dispose of the matter on or before December 31, 2023.
The department agreed to quash the assessment order and remand the matter back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to the stage of issuance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Amount Received In Satisfaction Of The Inheritance Rights Is Not A Taxable Income: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ramona Pinto v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 537
The High Court of Bombay held that an an amount received in satisfaction of the inheritance rights is not a taxable income.
The bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and Dr. Neela Gokhale held that receipt of an amount in lieu of inheritance or pursuant to family arrangement cannot be charged with tax under the Act as arrangement is an agreement between the members of the same family for the benefit of the family either by compromising doubtful or disputed rights or by preserving the family peace, honour, security and property of the family by avoiding litigation and amounts so received or not exigible to tax.
Case Title: Ramona Pinto v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 538
The High Court of Bombay held that an amount of arbitration award received by a retiring partner for relinquishing its claim in the firm is not a taxable income.
The bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and Dr. Neela Gokhale held that the amount received by a partner under a consent arbitration award for relinquishing its stake in the firm cannot be treated as an 'income from other sources' within the meaning of Section 56(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to bring it within the rubric of taxable income. It held that to bring an amount within the fold of Section 56(1), it has to be first shown as income, however, an amount received upon retirement from a firm is not an income. It also held that such an amount also does not fall within the scope of 'capital gains'.
The Court also held that receipt of an amount in lieu of inheritance or pursuant to family arrangement cannot be charged with tax under the Act as arrangement is an agreement between the members of the same family for the benefit of the family either by compromising doubtful or disputed rights or by preserving the family peace, honour, security and property of the family by avoiding litigation and amounts so received or not exigible to tax.
Case Title: Prestige Estate Projects Ltd v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 539
In a relief for numerous developers and flat purchasers, the Bombay High Court held that the 50% rebate for purchasing additional floor space index (FSI) granted by the Maharashtra Government to developers during the Covid-19 pandemic would be applicable till completion of the project and the difference amount couldn't be recovered subsequently.
A division bench comprising Justices GS Patel and Kamal Khata has directed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to re-issue Intimations of Disapproval (IoDs) and Commencement Certificates (CC) to petitioner developers without any additional payment.
Case Title: Satya Prakash Choudhry v. Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 540
The Bombay High Court refused to stay the OTT release of web series “The Railway Men – The Untold Story of Bhopal 1984,” inspired by events around the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and dismissed appeals filed by two convicts, erstwhile employees of Union Carbide India Private Ltd.
The duo approached the High Court in two separate petitions against orders of the City Civil Court refusing ad-interim relief. They sought a pre-screening of the web series citing certain factual errors in the trailer and a stay on the release.
The court observed there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the film stating it was a “work of fiction” and only 'inspired' by the tragedy, moreover events of the gas leak have been discussed and analysed nationally and internationally. Further there was a delay in approaching the court late.
NOC From Owner Not Required To Give New Electricity Connection To Tenant: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s Singh Automobiles v. Principal Secretary, Ministry of Energy & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 541
The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court reiterated that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the owner of the premises is not required for a tenant to get a new electricity connection.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Abhay J Mantri set aside a communication from Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. requiring NOC from owner to provide new connection to the petitioner.
Case Title: Anil Goel v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 542
The Bombay High Court discharged former Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Anil Goel from a corruption case for allegedly occupying a flat without paying rent while being posted in Kerala.
Justice Bharati Dangre observed that Goel did not have existing official dealing with the firm from which he allegedly obtained undue benefits, rejecting the prosecution's argument that if a business connection is made in future, offence under Section 11 (public servant obtaining undue advantage from person concerned in official dealings) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out.
Section 11 of the Act states that if a public servant accepts, obtains, agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain a 'valuable thing' without any payment or with inadequate payment from a person involved or likely to be involved with the public servant's official functions, the public servant can be punished with imprisonment ranging from six months to five years, along with a fine.
Case Title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 543
The Bombay High Court directed the District Legal Services Authority, Jalgaon to locate and rehabilitate two children of a woman murdered by her husband, observing that courts have a legal duty to compensate victims of the loss they have suffered.
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghwase sitting at Aurangabad while upholding murder conviction of the children's father, observed
“Courts of Law are not only obliged to exercise their power to award compensation but has also legal duty to compensate a victim for the loss and injury inflicted as a result of act and omission on part of other party… District Legal Services Authority, Jalgaon is hereby directed to undertake exercise of getting ascertained the current whereabouts of children of deceased, their educational and financial status and then on due enquiry and satisfaction, take appropriate steps for meaningful rehabilitation of children of appellant and deceased.”
Case Title: Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport v. BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 544
Bombay High Court held that explanation for each day of delay is not required to condone the delay in filing a case when broad reasons sufficient as per SC guidelines are given in the delay condonation application.
Justice Milind Jadhav upheld condonation of delay of over 5 years by a labour union in filing a complaint against BEST challenging termination observing that the union had sufficiently explained the delay before the labour court.
“By objecting to the delay, rather reasons for the delay, these workers will be deprived of their legitimate right of getting their complaint adjudicated. Insistence by the Petitioner that delay has to be explained for each day of delay cannot be countenanced…In view of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, explanation for day-to-day delay is not necessarily to be given. Broadly the reasons for the delay are mentioned and they cannot be disbelieved”, the court observed.
Case Title: Sameer Lawate v. State of Maharashtra and Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 545
The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail till November 29, 2023, to a wrestling (kusti) teacher accused of sexually harassing several of his minor male students in Pune.
The bench sought to hear the complainants before deciding on the application.
The vacation bench of Justice MM Sathaye granted ad-interim protection to the teacher in an FIR registered under sections 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act at the Vishraam Baug police station in Pune.
Case Title: DCW Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 546
The Bombay High Court held that the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, and the Assessing Officer is not entitled, on change of opinion, to commence proceedings for reassessment.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that even if the Assessing Officer, who passed the assessment order, may have raised too many legal inferences from the facts disclosed, on that account, the Assessing Officer, who has decided to reopen assessment proceedings, is not competent to reopen assessment proceedings.
Maha Village Panchayats Act | No Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch Valid Sans Formal Proposal & Seconding If Passed By 3/4th Majority: Bombay HC
Case Title: Savita Shrimant Ghule v. Sangita Bibhishan Sanap & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 547
The Bombay High Court held that a No Confidence Motion against Sarpanch and Upa Sarpanch would be valid even without being formally proposed and seconded as long as it was passed by the required majority and fulfilling all requirements under section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.
Justice Madhav Jamdar upheld the No Confidence Motion passed against the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ukkadgaon in Solapur District observing that it was passed meeting all statutory requirements.
“the requirement of Rule 17 in the matter of proposing and seconding the motion cannot impinge upon the validity of the motion of no confidence which has otherwise been passed by fulfilling the requirement of Section 35(3) of the said Act as the said infraction does not affect the merits of the case”, the court held.
Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 provides that a member who has given notice of a motion shall either state that he does not wish to move the motion, or formally move the motion, after the motion is duly seconded.
The court dismissed two writ petitions filed by the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch against an order dated October 13, 2023, wherein the Collector, Solapur, dismissed their Dispute Applications challenging the validity of the Motion of No Confidence.
Case Title: AjitSingh Ghorpade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 548
The Bombay High Court refused to hear a plea by advocate Ajitsingh Ghorpade seeking directions for appropriate measures to safeguard people from waterfalls and water bodies, claiming that every year around 1,500 to 2,000 people lose their lives to 'unsafe water bodies' in Maharashtra.
A division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor observed –
“On being explained that the averments made in the PIL petition are unsubstantiated, vague and general in nature, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the PIL petition with liberty to institute a fresh petition. In view of the aforesaid, the PIL petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition, if the petitioner is so advised, with appropriate data, information, law and study.”
Accordingly, the lawyer withdrew the plea.
On a query by the bench, the petitioner's lawyer had claimed that he had gathered the information that 1500-2000 people lost their lives to unsafe water bodies each year from newspapers and social media posts. He contended that the state government be directed to take steps to ensure the safety of people who visit such water bodies.
Case Title: Rohit s/o Chandrakant Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 549
The Bombay High Court clarified that the child victim of offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act or their guardians are not obligated to appear before the court in appeals or applications for suspension of sentence by the convict.
Justice Anil Pansare of the Nagpur Bench observed that confusion has arisen among advocates, investigating agencies, and court officials regarding the necessity of the presence of a child victim, through parents or guardians, in appeals under Section 374 or applications for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC.
The court emphasized that the child's or the guardian's presence is not obligatory except in bail applications, as per directions given by the court in Arjun Kishanrao Malge v. State of Maharashtra.
The court admitted an appeal against conviction and directed the appellant to delete the victim's name from both the appeal and the application for suspension for sentence.
Case Title: L&T Finance Limited v. Diamond Projects Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 550
The High Court of Bombay held that the judgment of the Constitution Bench in N.N. Global does not affect the power of Court to grant interim measures under Section 9 of the A&C Act despite the non-payment or insufficiency of payment of stamp duty on the arbitration agreement or the main agreement containing the arbitration clause.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that unlike Section 11 or 8 of the A&C Act, the Court exercising powers under Section 9 of the Act is not required to make a determination on the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement rather the Court would have to grant interim relief on the parameters of three-fold test of (a) prima facie case (b) balance of convenience and (c) irreparable injury.
The Court held that an inadequately/insufficiently stamped instrument/document/agreement shall not preclude the party from seeking interim measures as contemplated under Section 9 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: Anandrao G Pawar v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 551
The Bombay High Court held that tenants cannot stretch their limited right to reconstruct or repair a dilapidated building in order to obstruct the property owner/landlord from redeveloping his property.
Ruling in favor of the petitioner/landlord, division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata set aside the no-objection certificate ("NOC") and subsequent repair permissions granted to tenants w.r.t. a building in Worli.
The court observed that the petitioner/owner was desirous of redeveloping the property and was willing to re-accomodate tenants free of cost on basis of ownership. As such, he was entitled to “enjoy the fruits of development of that property to the fullest possible extent.”
It was added that when an owner does not exercise his rights, "and stands idly by doing nothing to the prejudice of the tenants", the tenants are not without a remedy. They can have the building repaired or rebuilt to its original condition, but no more.
Confession Made To Police Patil Admissible In Court: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Vishwas S/o Pitambar Patil v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 552
Confession made to Police Patil is admissible in court as Police Patil is not a “Police Officer” for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, Bombay High Court held.
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S Waghwase while upholding a man's conviction for murdering his own daughter, observed that his advocate relied on an outdated judgment to challenge the testimony of a prosecution witness.
The advocate representing the appellant had relied on the Single Judge decision in Ram Singh v. State of Maharashtra (1999) wherein it was held that the Police Patil is a Police Officer and therefore, confession made before him is not admissible in evidence. Based on this case, he challenged the testimony of a Police Patil who testified that the appellant confessed to him.
However, the court pointed out that subsequently, a Full Bench (three judge bench) of the Bombay HC in Rajeshwar s/o Hiraman Mohurle v. State of Maharashtra (2009) held that Police Patil appointed under the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967 is not a “Police Officer” for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Bombay High Court Orders Dept. To Refund Tax Deposited By HSBC Under Protest
Case Title: The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation v. UoI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 553
The Bombay High Court ordered the department to refund the tax deposited by HSBC under protest.
The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that once the amounts were deposited by the petitioner and retained by the department without the authority of law, the claim of the petitioner for refund could not have been denied. It was appropriate for the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ for the refund of money illegally retained or withheld.
The petitioner/assessee challenged the actions of the department/respondents in retaining the amount of Rs. 56,19,84,075, which was contended by the petitioner to be without any authority in law and that no tax is leviable or payable by the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Dismisses 20-Year-Old Testamentary Suit In Favor Of Actress Pooja Bedi, Her Aunts
Case Title: Shonali Kedar Dighe v. Ashita Tham and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 554
The Bombay High Court dismissed a 20-year-old testamentary suit regarding the estate of actor Pooja Bedi's uncle -Bipin Gupta - after Bedi and her aunts proved that the impugned 'Will,' bequeathing everything to a trust, was a “sham and bogus.”
Justice Milind Jadhav dismissed a petition filed by Vasant Sardal seeking to execute Gupta's alleged Will dated September 4, 2003. Sardal was one of the two executors of the Will and a co- trustee of the organisation that stood to gain from the Will.
However, the property will now be distributed amongst Gupta's legal heirs: his two sisters, Ashita Tham and Monica Uberoi & to his niece, Bedi, on behalf of her mother.
The estate includes tenancy rights in a flat in Firdaus Building, an Art Deco structure, a flat in the Neel Tarang building in Mahim, a two-acre plot in Panchgani, bank balances, investments in shares and bonds, and valuables in his possession.
Court held that the testator's treating doctor neither made an attesting witness nor did he testify to the soundness of the testator. It was an obscure bequest to a Charity controlled by complete strangers, the Court observed, Court was of the view that the Will appeared disjunctive as, despite half of page 2 being blank, the Will was only executed on page 3.
Lastly, the court said it was unnatural for Gupta to have excluded his sisters from the will.
Accordingly, the HC directed the police to transfer all movable assets to Bedi and her aunts after taking necessary undertakings from them.
Case Title: Anuradha Kapoor and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 555
The Bombay High Court held that a court can compound the offence in check bounce cases without the complainant's consent provided that the accused applied for compounding in the initial stages of the case and the complainant was adequately compensated.
Justice Anil Pansare of the Nagpur bench quashed a cheque bounce case against six out of twelve accused subject to the accused depositing the cheque amount along with interest and litigation costs as compensation to the complainant.
“when the application for compounding offences u/s 138 of the NI Act is made at the initial stage of the case and if the complainant is duly compensated, the trial Court will be fully justified in compounding the offence without consent of the complainant”, the court held.
Case Title: Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. SE Oil Products Pvt Ltd. & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 556
The Bombay High Court appointed a court receiver and directed immediate seizure of the refined soya bean oil produced by SE Oil Products Pvt Ltd as its trademark was 'deceptively similar' to the trademark of Patanjali Food Ltd.
In an ex-parte ad-interim order, Justice RI Chagla observed that prima facie, SE's trademark was identical to Patanjali's registered trademark “TULSI” and non-registered trademark “TULSI GOLD”.
The order was passed in an intellectual property rights suit by Patanjali. The court had said that the order would be uploaded only after the Additional Special Receiver completed the surprise seizures.
“I am of the opinion that the similarity between the rival trademarks is not a matter of coincidence. Defendant's impugned mark is identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered Trademark “TULSI” and Trademark “TULSI GOLD,” the court observed.
Case Title: High Court On Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 557
A division bench of Justices Gautam S Patel and Kamal Khata of the Bombay High Court held that an electricity bill or connection on a certain address is not proof of ownership or legality of construction.
An electricity distribution licensee cannot possibly assess questions of title of the property and check if the apartment or units have the necessary planning permissions, the court said.
“An electricity connection application and a bill cannot be used to prove ownership because that is not even the demand of the distribution licensee... It is impossible to expect a distribution licensee to act beyond the remit of the statute to assess questions of title to the property in question let alone assess questions of whether the structure or structures or apartments or units do or do not have the requisite planning permissions.
Case Title: Ashok Dayabhai Shah And Ors. v. Securities And Exchange Board of India And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 558
The Bombay High Court pulled up the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for not complying with the Court's order directing it to furnish documents concerning proceedings initiated against Bharat Nidhi Ltd (BNL), a company owned by Times Group MD Vineet Jain.
A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain, while directing SEBI to comply with the concerned order dated October 23, 2023 and furnish the requested documents to the complainants, observed that SEBI's conduct is damaging to the confidence of investors.
“There has been persistent non-compliance of such orders passed by the Court, despite the Special Leave Petition of the SEBI being rejected, is too far to be imagined nay totally unacceptable. SEBI is a public body, it is required to act in public interest, it needs to comply with the orders passed by this Court...Such approach of the SEBI, in our opinion, would cause a dent to the confidence, the investors would repose in the SEBI, which needs to function solely to further the object and purpose, for which it is created by the Act of the Parliament”, the court observed.
The observation was made by the court while dealing with a writ petition filed by minority shareholders of BNL seeking documents related to an investigation on their complaint.
Case Title: Tribhuvansing Raghunath Yadav v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 559
The Bombay High Court observed that the physical production of undertrial prisoners to the court can be 'cumbersome', and that their production could be ensured using a Video Conferencing (VC) facility with dedicated links for prison authorities and time schedules communicated in advance.
“At various stages it may not be necessary to produce the accused, as production of the accused physically in Court is a cumbersome procedure, which consumes time, money and resources…If the dedicated links are allotted to the prison authorities, and time slots are scheduled by the respective Courts, which are also intimated in advance, production of the accused persons can be a simple procedure instead of carrying the prisoners physically to the Court”, the court observed.
Justice Bharati Dangre called for the expansion of VC facilities in courts and prisons to ensure that undertrial prisoners are produced either physically or virtually.
Case Title: Shantapa alias Shantesh S. Kalasgond v. M/s. Anna
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 560
The Bombay High Court declined to temporarily restrain a Pune restaurant from using the trademark 'ANNA' in an infringement suit, upon finding that during the registration stage, the plaintiff had told the Trademarks Registry that there was no similarity between his mark 'ANNA IDLI GRUHA' and the defendant's mark 'ANNA.
In dismissing the plaintiff's plea for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from using his mark 'ANNA,' a single bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne held that the principle of 'prosecution history estoppel' would apply in this case.
The doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, which is traditionally associated with patent infringement actions is increasingly being applied in trademark infringement cases and aims to prevent a party from claiming advantages associated with a right consciously waived in previous proceedings.
It was observed that after having declared during registration, that there was no similarity between his mark and the defendant's mark, the Plaintiff could not turn around at the present stage and contend that the two marks were deceptively similar.
Court U/S 37 Of The A&C Act Can't Undertake An Independent Assessment Of Arbitral Award,: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Madgavkar Salvage v. Bergen Offshore Logistics Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 561
The High Court of Bombay held that under Section 37 of the A&C Act, the challenge must be related to the impugned order passed under Section 34 of the Act and not merely to the arbitral award. It held that it is incumbent upon a party to point out errors in the order under Section 34 to make out a case in appeal under Section 37.
The bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif. S. Doctor held that the Court while exercising powers under Section 37 of the A&C Act cannot take an independent assessment of the arbitral award, therefore, the challenge must be premised on the errors in the impugned order under Section 34. It held that it is not permissible for a party to challenge an arbitral award de hors any challenge to the impugned order.
Case Title: Mataji Educational Institution and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 562
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court set aside a state government order appointing an administrator over an Ashram School in Nanded District on the ground that one of the teachers had secured employment elsewhere with the connivance of the headmaster.
A division bench of Justice Mangesh S Patil and Justice Neeraj P Dhote held that the order is unsustainable as the reason for the appointment of the administrator does not fall within the 12 circumstances given in clause 3.2 (Appointment of Administrator) of the Ashram School Code.
The court further observed that the Deputy Secretary, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Department, who issued the order, had no power to appoint an administrator under the Ashram School Code read with section 3 of the Educational Institute Management Act, 1976.
Case Title: Sunil Achyutrao Thete v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 563
The Bombay High Court held that the sanctioning authority for a corruption case cannot exercise its power influenced by the dictation of others.
Justice Bharati Dangre quashed a corruption case against a Range Forest Officer (RFO) upon observing that the sanction to prosecute him was invalid as the Forrest Department, while of the clear opinion that he couldn't be prosecuted, granted sanction on the dictate of the Law Department.
The court allowed a Criminal Revision Application filed by one Sunil Thete, challenging the charges against him under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case involved an alleged bribery incident during a government-contracted road construction project.
Case Title: Peoples Education Society Thane v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 564
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment proceedings alleging escapement of income on transfer of leasehold rights.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that if the amount was already considered in the subsequent AY and the assessment order was also passed, the question of escapement of income for the same amount in the previous AY will not arise as there was no change in the rate of tax.
The petitioner/assessee is a charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Petitioner has been undertaking educational activities since 1926 in running English and Marathi-medium schools and colleges.
Case Title: Harish B. Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 565
The Bombay High Court directed the State Government to implement a 2018 direction of the Supreme Court in “All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India,” which directed the regularisation of employment of Court Managers responsible for handling the administration of all courts across Maharashtra.
Court Managers are MBA graduates whose assistance in administration is meant to assist judges in devoting more time to judicial functioning and enhancing the efficiency of judicial systems. The managers can also help identify weaknesses and recommend workable steps under the supervision of the judges.
After the matter came up before a division bench comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain the court directed the State government to decide on High Court's 2019 proposal.
“We may also observe that it would not be permissible for the State Government, to not take a decision on the regularization proposal on any conditions which are extraneous to the orders passed by the Supreme Court, and the orders passed by the Supreme Court are required to be implemented in letter and spirit,' it observed.
Case Title: Ashok Bhikanrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 566
Observing that workers under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) are not entitled to continued employment or regularisation, the Bombay High Court refused to grant absorption in service to a 60-year-old man who worked for two years under EGS as a Mustering Assistant.
A division bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice YG Khobragade sitting at Aurangabad observed, “…workers working on the EGS are not a part of the process of recruitment and they neither have a right for continued employment, nor can they file ULP complaints under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 for claiming regularisation or permanency, nor can they raise an Industrial Dispute on account of being discontinued from the EGS.”
The court, while dismissing the man's writ petition, granted compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioner considering that he had been litigating for 37 years and was now 60 years of age.
The petitioner, one Ashok Deshmukh, sought absorption under a Government Resolution (GR) dated December 01, 1995, for absorption of Mustering Assistants in Government services.
Case Title: Aarti Shailesh Shah v. Satish Vasant Dharukkar & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 567
The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside process and summons issued to a woman by the Magistrate's court in a cheque bounce case, noting that only her husband was a signatory to the cheque.
Justice Sarang Kotwal quoted the judgement of the Supreme Court in Aparna A. Shah vs M/S. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd.
“We also hold that Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in case of issuance of cheque from joint accounts, a joint account holder cannot be prosecuted unless the cheque has been signed by each and every person who is a joint account holder,” he held.
Case Title: Serum Institute of India Private Limited v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 568
The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition filed by Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. challenging a 2016 amendment to the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that the amendment to Section 2(24) by insertion of the impugned sub-clause that includes various subsidies and concessions only indicates the well-established jurisprudential path ensuring that the income tax laws remain attuned to the economic realities and continue to serve as a vital cog in the nation's fiscal machinery. It is the duty of the legislature to ensure that taxation policy reflects a balance between incentivizing economic activity and ensuring the equitable distribution of fiscal resources.
Case Title: Sadanand Gangaram Kadam v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.
The Bombay High Court refused bail to Sadanand Kadam, a close associate of Shiv Sena (UBT) MLC Anil Parab, accused in a money laundering case in connection with the construction of an allegedly illegal resort named 'Sai Resort' in Dapoli, situated in Maharashtra's Ratnagiri district.
Justice MS Karnik observed that merely because a separate ECIR is not registered on the basis of an FIR by the Block Development Officer will not mean that there is no predicate offence for the purpose of PMLA. The court noted that some of the offences pertaining to the FIR are scheduled offences under PMLA. The complaint is filed on the basis of the materials which form a part of the investigation into the MoEF complaint as well as the FIR.
The ECIR was registered on the basis of the MoEF complaint. The process issued under the MoEF complaint was quashed by the revisional Court. However, the court noted, the complaint under Section 45 of the PMLA before the Special Court concerns the MoEF complaint as well as the FIR.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED ) arrested Kadam in March 2023 in the money laundering case. He approached the High Court after his bail application was rejected by the Special PMLA Court in October.
Tax Can't Be Imposed Presuming Possible Order Of The Small Causes Court: Bombay High Court
Case Title: TV Patel Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 570
The Bombay High Court held that one cannot tax the amount that has not accrued to the assessee and has not been received by the assessee on the assumption and presumption that in the future, the small Causes court will at least order the said sum in favour of the appellant or assessee.
The bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the determination of the amount payable by the IDBI to the appellant as prayed for by the appellant in its suit is to be determined by the Small Causes Court, and it is only when the Court passes a final decree that one can say that the right to receive the sum decreed by the Small Causes Court has accrued to the appellant. Till then, the right to receive any sum by the appellant is in jeopardy and subjudice before the Small Causes Court
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 571
The Bombay High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a 41-year-old UK citizen seeking custody of his 3-year-old daughter from his estranged wife, an Indian citizen.
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Gauri Godse, while rejecting the plea, emphasized that it would not be safe to hand over custody to the father due to his reported anger issues and past violent behaviour.
“the child is a girl of a tender age of three and half years and thus requires the care and affection of her mother. Considering the past conduct of the petitioner having anger issues, it will not be safe to hand over custody of the child to him”, the court held.
Case Title: Mustansir Barma v. Executive Engineer A ward & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 572
The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition by Padma Shri awardee Mustansir Barma alleging illegal repairs by the owner of ground floor of a building in Colaba observing that the court cannot permit writ jurisdiction to be “weaponized” by delving into disputed questions of fact.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata deemed the issue a private dispute and observed –
“If the dispute from this individual Petitioner (who repeatedly asserts that he has been conferred a Padma Shri, as if this is of the slightest consequence to his status as a litigant like any other before us) is that the works are not tenantable repairs, then he should have the courage and take the trouble to file a suit, pay court fees and step into the witness box. Simply put, we are not prepared to accept his word for it (and most certainly not merely because he has a Padma Shri).”
The court criticized the conduct of the petitioner stating that it led to an undue consumption of judicial time. The court concluded that the petition lacks bona fides and appears to be an attempt to involve the court in private disputes.
Case Title: Nikhil H Malkan v. Standard Chartered Investment and Loans (India) Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 573
The High Court of Bombay held that Section 29A permits the court to extend the mandate of the arbitral tribunal even when the application is made after the expiry of time limit provided therein.
The bench of Justice Manish Pitale clarified that Section 29A(4) allows the Court to extend the arbitrator's mandate either before or after the specified period's expiry, provided sufficient grounds are demonstrated. The purpose is to ensure the completion of arbitral proceedings, and a rigid time limit is not intended by the legislature.
Case Title: M/s. Siddhivinayak Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 574
The Bombay High Court observed that processing of tenders as per a tender condition which was neither publicized nor made part of the tender document amounts to denial of opportunity to eligible bidders and can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor temporarily restrained the Pune Municipal Corporation ("PMC") from issuing work order, observing –
“...we are of the, prima facie, opinion that any tender condition not publicized and not made part of the tender document, if permitted to be acted upon at the time of processing the tenders, it amounts to denial of opportunity of participation of many eligible tenderers who otherwise would have been eligible but for altered tender condition.”
The relief came to be granted in a writ petition filed by M/s Siddhivinayak Enterprises, which challenged a tender issued by the PMC on June 21, 2023, inviting bids for the supply of contract labor for sweeping work in specific areas.
Case Title: Manisha G. Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 575
The Bombay High Court quashed the chargesheet filed against a woman accused of beating her husband with a broom and biting his hand, holding that the ingredients constituting the offence of Section 324 IPC were absent.
A division bench comprising Justice Prakash D Naik and Justice NR Borkar allowed the woman's writ petition observing –
“The requisite ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 324 of the IPC are completely absent. The injury certificate of the complainant indicates that he had suffered blunt trauma to the right hand. The medical opinion sought by the police indicates that there is possibility of injuries being caused by self-inflicted. The complainant has expired. The statement of witness does not support the version of complainant. The charge-sheet does not make out offences against the petitioner.”
The case originated from an FIR registered at the behest of petitioner's husband, who accused her of offenses under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means), 427 (mischief), 504 (insult with intent to provoke), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The allegations included abuse and assault by using a broom, as well as biting the complainant's hand. However, the chargesheet filed after the investigation excluded Section 506.
Case Title: Mohammed Farooq Mohamemed Hanif Shaikh @ Farooqe Shaikh v. The Deputy Director & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 576
The Bombay High Court held that house arrest is a form of arrest, and the period of house arrest can be taken into account while calculating the total period of custody of an accused.
A division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam C Chandak granted bail to one Mohammed Farooq Shaikh, who has been in custody for over 5 years and 8 months, including over 4 years of house arrest.
“Mr. Venegavkar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-ED submitted that, the period of house arrest cannot be taken into consideration for computing the total period of custody of the Petitioner and it needs to be excluded. We are not in agreement with the learned counsel, as according to us house arrest is ultimately arrest of person, whereby his liberty to be a free person is ultimately curtailed by operation of law”, the court observed.
Court Cannot Rewrite Criteria Set By Expert Body: Bombay High Court Upholds Physical Education Degree Holders' Eligibility As Sports Coaches
Case Title: Dadaso Balaso Awad and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 577
The Bombay High Court upheld an advertisement by Directorate of Sports and Youth Services allowing degree holders in Physical Education and State-level sportspersons to compete for the Sports Coach positions.
A division bench comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by sports coaches Dadaso Balaso Awad and Yogesh Prakash More praying that only diploma holders from NIS should be considered for the post of Sports Coach.
“This Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it deal with the issue of whether the desirable qualifications is on par with the prescribed other qualification. This would amount to re-writing the advertisement by the Court which is not permissible. Question of equivalence/non-equivalence will also fall outside the domain of the Court”, the court held.
Case Title: Nita Narendra Nadgouda v. M/s. Garuda Carriers and Shipping (P) Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 578
Observing that the driver of a stationary vehicle on the road has the duty to turn on parking lights, the Bombay High Court attributed 100 percent negligence to the driver of a stationary truck that collided with a motorcycle at night.
Justice Shivkumar Dige enhanced the compensation awarded to the kin of the deceased in the fatal accident in 2003 in a plea seeking by the deceased's kin seeking higher compensation.
“It is significant to note that the driver of the truck / trailer has not examined himself or any witness to prove that he had taken proper care to avoid the accident. The parking lights of the said truck were not on. It was the duty of the driver of the offending truck to put on the parking lights when the truck was stationed on the road…I am holding that there was 100% negligence of the driver of the truck”, the court held.
Case Title: High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own Motion v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 579
Bombay High Court directed Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and BMC to jointly inspect 7 major public projects in Mumbai to ensure compliance with pollution control norms and take legal action against non-compliant stakeholders.
“We direct that the MCGM and the Pollution Control Board shall carry out a joint inspection of the 7 sites and immediately take requisite steps, pass orders and ensure that all the norms at these sites at least are followed. In case any of the stakeholders at these sites is found to be non-compliant, legal action shall also be taken by MCGM and MPCB”, a division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Girish S Kulkarni said.
The court was hearing a suo moto PIL on air pollution in Mumbai. Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Darius Khambata, drew attention to a news report highlighting the seven public project sites of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) which generated dust and caused air pollution. These sites are - road concretisation at suburban Bandra and Khar, the bullet train site at BKC, the Versova-Bandra sea link project, the Mumbai Metro-III, the Mumbai Coastal Road and the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link.
Case Title: High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own Motion v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 580
The Bombay High Court criticized the state government for underutilization of the designated budget for the procurement of drugs and medical equipment.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor said that unspent budget gets lapsed at the cost of the healthcare system.
“what we, prima facie, find is that the entire budget sanctioned for procurement of drugs and medical equipments has not been spent…We, thus, expect that adequate and appropriate steps shall be taken to spend the budgetary allocation in its entirety otherwise after sanctioning the amount, if it is not used, the same gets lapsed at the cost of the health care system.”
The court was dealing with a suo motu PIL regarding two government hospitals in Nanded and Aurangabad districts of Maharashtra which reported over 50 deaths within a span of four days.
Tea Stored In Warehouse Is An Agricultural Produce, Not Eligible To Service Tax: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Nutan Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 581
The Bombay High Court issued a writ of certiorari against the Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) and held that “tea” stored in warehouses is agricultural produce and is not eligible for service tax.
The bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that a writ of certiorari can be issued only when there is a failure of justice and that it cannot be issued merely because it may be legally permissible to do so. There must be an error apparent on the face of the record, as the High Court acts merely in a supervisory capacity. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error that strikes one by mere sight and does not mean a long-drawn-out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such errors should not require any extraneous matter to show their incorrectness.
Case Title: Shaila Madhukar Gore and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 582
The Bombay High Court held that it cannot issue direction for protection of a site as a monument of historical importance in the absence of a formal declaration of the site as a monument of State/National importance or a heritage site under a Central or State law or the Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai (DCR).
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor refused to order protection of Vithal – Rukumai/Rukhmini Temple in South Mumbai observing –
“we are unable to grant the prayers in this Writ Petition in absence of declaration or inclusion of the temple site in question as an ancient monument of National / State importance or as a heritage site.”
The court dismissed a writ petition by four persons seeking protection and preservation of the temple, situated in Girgaum, Mumbai, claiming it to be an ancient temple over 200 years old, associated with historical events.
The court, however, permitted the petitioners to approach authorities in the Central and State Governments, or the MCGM, to seek formal declaration of the temple site as an ancient and historical monument or for inclusion in the list of heritage buildings and precincts.
Case Title: Ajay Mahasukhlal Shah v. Chandrakant Babulal Shah and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 583
The Bombay High Court observed that the property owner is the best judge of his residential needs, and the tenant cannot make the landlord adjust to smaller premises to protect the tenancy.
Justice Anuja Prabhudessai upheld an eviction decree observing that the landlords showed a “reasonable and bonafide requirement” of the premises as they along with 11 family members were currently occupying premises only 400 sq ft in area.
“The proven fact is that the need of the Plaintiffs (owners) for additional accommodation is genuine, honest and conceived in good faith and thus reasonable and bonafide. In such circumstances, challenge to the finding rendered by the courts below on the issue of bonafide and reasonable need of the premises cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and the tenant cannot dictate terms to him as to how he can and how he should adjust in the available premises”.
Case Title: Hitachi Astemo Fie Pvt. Ltd. v. Nirajkumar Prabhakarrao Kadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 584
The Bombay High Court upheld the termination of an employee of Hitachi Astemo Fie Pvt. Ltd., an auto parts manufacturer, who was fired over provocative posts on Facebook.
Justice Milind N Jadhav observed –
“Freedom of speech and expression cannot be allowed to be transgressed beyond reasonableness. If that is allowed, it could lead to disastrous consequences. In a given case, one cannot and should not wait for the consequences to occur. Such acts itself are required to be nipped in the bud. Otherwise it would convey a wrong signal to the society at large.”
The court allowed a writ petition filed by Hitachi Astemo Fie Pvt. Ltd. against an order dated May 31, 2023 of the Labour Court, Pune setting aside the charge-sheet and enquiry against the employee as illegal.
Case Title: Sughosh Joshi v. ECI and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 585
The Bombay High Court ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct a bye-election immediately for the Pune Lok Sabha constituency, which has been vacant since the death of MP Girish Bapat on March 29, 2023.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata criticized the ECI's reasoning for not conducting the by-election, claiming that it has been too busy since March 2023 with preparations for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
“In any parliamentary democracy, governance is by elected representatives. Those elected to Parliament are the voice of the people. If the representative is no more, another must be elected in his place. The people choose their representatives. A constituency cannot go unrepresented beyond the time prescribed in the statute. An indefinite period of an entire constituency remaining unrepresented is wholly unconstitutional and is fundamentally anathema to our constitutional structure”, the court observed.
The court quashed ECI's certificate stating that bye-elections will not be held as it is busy with preparation for 2024 General Elections and the candidate elected in the bye-election will have a very short tenure.
Case Title: Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Jaipur IPL Cricket Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 586
The Bombay High Court upheld the reduction of the total penalty imposed on Jaipur IPL Cricket Pvt. Ltd. (JIPL), owner of the Rajasthan Royals franchise, from Rs. 98.35 crores to Rs. 15 crores for violation of foreign exchange laws and regulations.
A division bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that the Special Director of Enforcement failed to provide any justification for imposing a maximum penalty on the company and its directors and promoters.
“We find that the Special Director has completely failed to apply the doctrine of proportionality as interpreted and elucidated by the Apex Court in its various decisions, while choosing to impose maximum penalty on Respondents…We are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that in the absence of any discussion or justification pertaining to the basis for imposing the maximum penalty and juxtaposing this with the alleged acts attributed to each individual, the order of the Special Director is unsustainable”, the court held.
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lauretta Shashi Mogale and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 587
The Bombay High Court held that arrears cannot be considered while calculating a person's salary for the purpose of compensation for a motor accident.
Justice Shivkumar Dige, while upholding enhancement of compensation to the family of a deceased in an accident, deducted the amount of arrears mentioned in his salary slip while calculating monthly income.
“This salary slip shows the arrears of Rs.8,900/- but Tribunal has considered this amount as salary of the deceased. In my view, arrears cannot be considered as salary. Hence, I am deducting this amount from the salary of deceased”, the court stated.
Case Title: Tribhuvansingh Raghunath Yadav v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 588
The Bombay High Court took suo moto cognizance of the issue of non-production of the undertrial prisoners before the appropriate courts at various stages.
Justice Bharati Dangre was dealing with a bail application by one Tribhuvansingh Raghunath Yadav, an accused in a forgery case who wasn't produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Andheri on 23 dates either physically or through VC.
“Bail Application No.1836 of 2023 is disposed off, as far as applicant is concerned. However, since the orders which are passed by me appointing the Amicus pertain to the larger issue of production of the under-trial prisoners before the appropriate courts at various stages, the Application is now titled as 'suo motu application' and the registry shall allot a new number to the same”, the court observed.
Case Title: Alka Bhausaheb Bhad v. Bhausaheb Ramrao Bhad
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 589
A woman who married a man under the misrepresentation that he was divorced would be treated as his 'wife' under Section 125 CrPC, and she is entitled to maintenance, the Bombay High Court held.
Justice Rajesh Patil ruled "that respondent cannot be allowed to deny the maintenance claim to the Petitioner, taking advantage of his own wrong. I am of the opinion as held in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit reported in (1999) at least for the purpose of Section 125 of CrPC, Petitioner would be treated as the 'wife' of the respondent."
According to the judgement, if the claimant woman can establish that she and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the court can presume them to be legally married spouses. Especially since the standard of proof to claim maintenance is more relaxed than what would be required in trials under IPC.
Case Title: Maharashtra Eastern Grid Power Transmission Company Ltd. v. Collector of Buldhana and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 590
The Bombay High Court held that a transmission licensee appointed as the Telegraph Authority also has the power to determine the compensation amount along with the power to pay compensation for using land for installing electricity transmission lines.
Justice Avinash G Gharote of the Nagpur bench observed that the power to pay compensation under section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 includes the power to determine compensation as without determination of compensation, there cannot be any payment.
“The contention of Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 (landowner) that section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act only contemplates a power to pay and not to determine the compensation and the compensation has to be determined by the District Collector, in my considered opinion is misconceived…”, the court held.
If the District Collector had the authority to determine the compensation, section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act would have contained such a provision, the court observed.
Bombay High Court Directs Dept. To Permit Amend In GSTR-1, Either Online Or Manual
Case Title: Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 591
The Bombay High Court directed the department to permit the petitioner or assessee to amend or rectify Form GSTR-1 for the period July 2021, November 2021, and January 2022, either online or manually.
The bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that a bona fide, inadvertent error in furnishing details in a GST return needs to be recognized and permitted to be corrected by the department when, in such cases, the department is aware that there is no loss of revenue to the government. The free play in the joint requires eminent recognition. The department needs to avoid unwarranted litigation on issues and make the system more assessee-friendly. The approach would also foster the interest of revenue in the collection of taxes.
Court Can't Return Plaint Based On Defendant's Suit In Another Court Sans Explicitly Recording Lack Of Jurisdiction: Bombay HC
Case Title: Shreem Electric Limited v. Transformers and Rectifers India Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 592
The 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.
Case Title: Bank of India v. M/s. Maruti Civil Works
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 593
The 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.
Case Title: Manya Vejju v. Sapna Bhog
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 594
The 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.
Case Title: HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nayajoddin Nijamuddin and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 595
The 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 case of the appellant that the intimation was sent to the insured. However, said intimation was not served for want of complete address. The fact remains that the intimation of cancellation of policy was not received by the insured”, the court observed.
Case Title: Dr. Sublendu Prakash Diwakar v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 596
The Bombay High Court held that under section 91 of the CrPC, an accused at the stage of framing of charges, can seek production of potentially exculpatory documents voluntarily submitted to investigating officer (IO) even if he has the documents in his possession and submitted copies to the IO.
Justice Bharati Dangre set aside a sessions court order refusing to direct the IO to produce documents submitted by the accused on the ground that the accused already had possession of documents and could produce them during trial.
The court reasoned that the documents produced through the IO as being received by him during the investigation would be significant instead of the accused producing them before the court in defence as there can be a clarification at the stage of framing of charges itself as to what documents were furnished by the accused during the investigation.
Case Title: Gautam P Navlakha v. National Investigating Agency
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 597
There is no material to infer senior journalist and accused Gautam Navlakha had committed a terrorist Act as contemplated under Section 15 of UAPA, the Bombay High Court observed in its detailed order granting him bail in the Bhima Koregaon – Elgar Parishad riots case.
“The actual involvement of the appellant in any terrorist act cannot be even inferred from any of the communications and/ or statements of the witnesses,” the court observed.
The bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Shivkumar Dige granted bail to Navlakha an, accused in the Bhima Koregaon- Elgar Parishad case over alleged Maoist links.
Navlakha, a journalist and activist was arrested on April 14, 2020 for his alleged involvement in the violence that erupted at Bhima Koregaon village in Pune district on January 1, 2018. He has been in jail for over 3 years and 8 months.
Case Title: Atos India Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 598
The Bombay High Court held that an agreement to provide manpower to perform maintenance is a contract of service and not a sale contract under the MVAT Act.
The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale has observed that the pith and substance of the contract or true nature of the transaction show that the contract is a contract for service simpliciter and is not a works contract or composite contract consisting of two contracts, one for service and one for sale, but is an indivisible contract for service only. On examination of the contract as a whole, it becomes obvious that the contract is essentially an agreement to render service. The theory of works contract or the concept of aspect theory is not attractive.
Customs Deputy Commissioner's Order Contrary To AAR's Ruling, Bombay High Court Quashes
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 599
The Bombay High Court quashed the customs deputy commissioner's order contrary to the ruling passed by the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR).
The bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that the ruling passed by the AAR in the petitioner's own case is binding under Section 28 J (1) on the petitioner and the respondents/department as there is no change in law post-decision and the decision has been accepted by the department in the absence of any further challenge before the higher forum.
Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Murder Accused Held For 5 Years Without Framing Of Charges
Case Title: Jahid alias Javed Liyakat Ansari v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 600
The Bombay High Court granted bail to an accused in a murder case citing his prolonged incarceration without the framing of charges for the past five years.
Justice Bharati Dangre while granting bail to one Javed Ansari, stated
“Though the material in the charge-sheet indicate the Applicant's active participation in the subject C.R., if the concerned Court on account of the reason that it was embroiled in several time-bound matters, was not able to take the trial of the Applicant any further, I am left with no other option than to secure his release on bail, as he cannot be incarcerated indefnitely as an under-trial prisoner and it is more than fve years, he remained incarcerated without the trial.”
Case Title: Aniket s/o Shahadev Labade v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 601
The Bombay High Court held that in cases involving offences under both the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), a victim does not have the right to file an appeal under Section 14-A of the Atrocities Act against acquittal or bail.
A Full Bench of Justice Mangesh S Patil, Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice RG Avachat sitting at Aurangabad while answering a reference by a Single Judge in an anticipatory bail application held –
“in a case involving offences under both, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, a victim thereof does not have a right to prefer appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.”
The court said that provisions of the CrPC apply to cases involving offences under both Acts, and the victim can appeal against acquittal or conviction for lesser offence as per proviso to section 372 of the CrPC.
Case Title: Parvej Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 602
The Bombay High Court directed the state government to frame guidelines for conducting test identification parades (TI parades) in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S Waghwase sitting at Aurangabad also directed the state to come up with a standard operating procedure (SOP) to keep details of the victim confidential while participating in the TI parade.
Astonished at the handling of a POCSO case in which a 6-year-old victim was subjected to the identification process within the jail premises, the court criticized the special executive magistrate for not adhering to the stipulated procedures under the POCSO Act, specifically designed to prevent confrontation between the accused and the victim.
Case Title: Leyla Mohmoodi v. Additional Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 603
The Bombay High Court held that the action on the part of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs in disposing of or selling the gold jewellery belonging to the petitioners or assessee subject matter of the proceedings was illegal and unconstitutional.
The bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain has directed the respondents or department to restore to the petitioners an equivalent amount of gold, namely 1028 gms, or to compensate the petitioners by making payments equivalent to the market value of the gold, as of date.
The petitioners were Iranian nationals. They arrived at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Mumbai, by Oman Air Flight. The petitioners were wearing gold ornaments (bangles) with a net weight of 1028 grams. They were intercepted by the customs officials at Mumbai Airport, and the gold bangles worn by them were seized by the customs officials.
Case Title: Akshay Ashok Chaudhari and Ors. v. Government of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 604
The Bombay High Court set aside the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's (MAT) February 2023 order barring candidates from the Maratha community from being considered for government jobs under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category in the recruitment processes of 2019.
A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamadar and Justice Manjusha Deshpande upheld the state government's decision to allow candidates who initially applied under the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) in 2019, to switch to the EWS category during the ongoing recruitment process.
The court highlighted the one-time situation created after the Supreme Court struck down the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Class Act, 2018 (SEBC Act), leading to government resolutions extending the EWS quota to candidates who had initially applied under through SEBC category.
The court noted that no alteration occurred in EWS reservation and the original EWS candidates had not been disqualified, they just had to compete with a larger pool of candidates when the state allowed SEBC candidates to apply under EWS. The SEBC candidates still had to produce due EWS certificates to be eligible under EWS category, the court said.
Case Title: Harjinder Kaur v. The Foreigner Regional Registration Office & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 605
The Bombay High Court stayed the deportation of a Yemeni National and ordered his immediate release from the custody of the Pune police. He was detained by the police on 6th November 2023 under the Foreigners Act.
A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse observed that the Yemeni National – Fahd – was detained at the police station for one month and 18 days in the absence of a designated detention centre as required under the Foreigners Act.
Moreover, it was found that he has been living in India for several years, had a family here, and had also applied for an extension of his visa once he was granted refugee status by the United Nations.
Case Title: Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Kaamakazi Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 606
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim injunction against playing of copyrighted songs without license in the New Year 2024 event to be organized at Ramada Hotel, Lucknow.
Justice RI Chagla granted the relief to Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) in its infringement suit against Kaamakazi Solution Pvt. Ltd, the organizer of the event.
“In my view, in the absence of ad-interim relief, the Plaintiff will suffer grave irreparable loss. A prima facie case made out of the likelihood of infringement of the Plaintiff copyrighted works. This Court is of the prima faice view that the balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendants have chosen not to make an appearance despite service. Hence, the ad-interim relief is being granted”, the court observed.
Case Title: Gemini Developers v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 607
The Bombay High Court held that additional fees applicable for changing the structure of a slum developer company/firm and inducting third parties is not applicable when the owner inducts his legal heirs as partners in order to ensure smooth transition after his death.
Justice Milind N Jadhav quashed an order of the Slum Development Authority (SRA) directing a slum developer to pay additional fees after the owner converted the sole proprietorship to a partnership and inducted his legal heirs as partners.
“it is crystal clear that the exemption provided in clause (ix) of the SRA office order dated 23.03.2015 is applicable to the facts of the Petitioner's case as the conversion of the proprietorship firm into partnership firm was never intended to induct any third party but only the legal heirs, which even otherwise eventually would have taken place after the demise of Mr. Ramesh Malhotra”, the court observed.
Case Title: Arti Rajesh Karangutkar v. Anna Rocky Fernandes and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 608
The Bombay High Court held that a borrower who received loan in cash is liable for dishonour of cheques issued towards repayment even if the loan amount was beyond the permissible limit for cash transactions under the Income Tax Act.
Section 269-SS of the IT Act bars receipt of loan or deposit of more than Rs. 20,000 in cash.
Justice PK Chavan convicted a woman in a cheque bounce case, rejecting her defence that there is a violation of Section 269-SS as the amount given in cash exceeded Rs. 20,000.
“The penalty for taking such advance or deposit in contravention of provisions of Section 269-SS was to be suffered by the taker who accepts the advance. It is thus clear that no person should accept any loan or deposit of a sum of Rs.20,000/- or more otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. The provision does not say that a person cannot advance more than Rs.20,000/- in cash to another person. The learned Magistrate has wrongly invoked the aforesaid provisions while dismissing the complaint. As such, the provisions of Section 269-SS and 271D of the Income Tax Act have absolutely no bearing over the case in hand…”, the court said.
Case Title: Chintan Vidyasagar Upadhyay v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 609
The Bombay High Court refused to suspend sentence of artist Chintan Upadhyay observing that the confession of co-accused Pradeep Rajbhar, which implicated Upadhyay, was supported by corroborating evidence and was true and voluntary.
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse dismissed the application for sentence suspension filed by Upadhyay, who was convicted in the 2015 double murder case of his ex-wife, Hema Upadhyay, and her lawyer, Haresh Bhambhani.
“The aforesaid circumstances corroborate the confessional statement of co-accused-Pradeep which is found to be true and voluntary. It is also pertinent to note that bail granted by the Apex Court was not on merits but on account of long incarceration of the applicant i.e. 5 years and since about 12 witnesses were yet to be examined. Considering the overall evidence on record, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail”, the court held.
Case Title: Tata Motors Finance Solutions Ltd v. Naushad Khan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 610
The High Court of Bombay held that a debt owed to a financial institution covered only under the SARFAESI Act is arbitrable, however, a debt owed to a financial institution to which the provisions of RDDB Act also applies is non-arbitrable.
The bench of Justice Manish Pitale while distinguishing both the acts held that the proceedings under RDDB Act contains exhaustive provisions for the determination as well as the recovery of the determined debt, however, SARFAESI Act contains provisions only for the enforcement of the debt and no provision for the determination/crystallization of the debt.
The Court held that since the RDDB Act contains an exhaustive provision, the debts covered under the ambit of the Act are non-arbitrable.
Case Title: Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani v. Directorate Of Enforcement
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 611
An advocate who signs an application or pleading with scandalous remarks against the Court without reasonable grounds to create an artificial situation so that the matter was recused by a judge may be liable for a contempt action, the Bombay High Court reiterated while contemplating action against two lawyers and issuing contempt notice against their client.
The division bench comprising Justices Nitin Sambre and NR Borkar added that in a conflict between a lawyer's obligations to the Court and his duty to the client, what prevails first is his obligation to the Court.
Case Title: Rajinder Kaur Jaspal Singh Layal v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 612
The Bombay High Court directed the Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai to renew the passports of a woman and her two sons, which were earlier rejected by the Passport Authority due to objections raised by the woman's brother-in-law over the address mentioned by them in their passport applications.
Delivering the judgement, Justices AS Chandurkar and Firdosh P Pooniwalla stated, "A person cannot be deprived of his/her fundamental right to travel abroad on the ground that there is a dispute in respect of the property which is mentioned in the address given by the applicant for the purposes of including it in the passport."
The court however clarified the Petitioners' address in the passport would not by itself confer on them any right in respect of the said property so as to prejudice the brother-in-law in any way.
Nonetheless, the court observed that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, no person can be deprived of this right except according to the procedure established by law as laid down in the Passports Act, 1967.
Case Title: Marico Limited v. KLF Nirmal Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 613
The Bombay High Court refused to vacate its ex-parte order restraining KLF Nirmal Industries from using for its coconut oil products blue packaging and label deceptively similar to that of Parachute Coconut Oil.
Justice RI Chagla observed that KLF Nirmal Industries Pvt. Ltd. failed to prove that Marico Ltd, manufacturer of Parachute coconut oil, knowingly supressed its delay in seeking the injunction against packaging of KLF Nirmal's coconut oil products.
Case Title: Tohid Rehman Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 614
An accused claiming to be a juvenile need not produce a Date of Birth (DOB) certificate from his 'first' school to determine his age and a certificate from any school he attended can be submitted under the new Juvenile Justice Act 2015, (JJ Act) the Bombay High Court held.
Justice SM Modak set aside the trial court's order that adjudicated the accused's plea based on the old JJ Act and Rules.
The FIR was registered for kidnapping and rape, as well as under sections of 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused claimed that he was a juvenile on the date of the offence in 2018.
The Sessions Court had asked the accused to submit documents about his date of birth as per Section 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Rules, 2007, requiring a certificate from the school first attended.
However, Justice Modak observed, that although the trial Court considered Rule 12(3) of 2007 Rules, now 2015 Act and 2016 Rules are enacted. So, earlier rules do not exist."
Quoting the Supreme Court judgment in Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), the High Court said, "What was provided under Rule 12 of the JJ Rules 2007 has been provided under Section 94 of the JJ Act 2015. Section 94(2)(i) only refers to "date of birth certificate from the school" and does not insist on the first school certificate."
Case Title: Nitin Shivdas Satpute v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 615
The Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench restored an order passed by a Magistrate Court in Murtizapur, Maharashtra, issuing process against a college principal for offences under Sections 294 (obscenity), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
Justice Anil Pansare held that the words allegedly uttered by the Principal asking his colleagues “Whether your wives had come to me for sleeping to tell you that I am of bad character” inside his chamber in front of three other professors would amount to an obscene act.
The college Principal's chamber was a 'public place' as contemplated under Section 294 of the IPC, the court said, adding, “The Sessions Court, however, took an erroneous view that the Principal's Chamber is not a public place.”
Case Title: Shailesh Ranka and Ors v. Windsor Machines Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 616
The High Court of Bombay held that a dispute related to the business of the firm cannot be referred to arbitration by a partner in absence of other partners.
The bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that the implied authority granted to a partner does not extend to referring the dispute to arbitration in view of the bar under Section 19(2)(a) of the Partnership Act, 1932.
The Court also held that an arbitration notice issued by one of the partners without the consent of the remaining partners is invalid which renders the petition for the appointment of the arbitrator also invalid.
Case Title: K Raj & Company & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 617
The Bombay High Court ordered the Additional Chief Secretary, Maharashtra Excise Department, to conduct an inquiry into excise officials who seized a company's ethanol despite it not being a contraband as per Bombay Prohibition Act.
A division bench Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain in a writ petition observed that the excise officials appeared to have acted on the behest of the petitioner company's competitors and harmed the petitioner's reputation and business interest.
The court further deprecated the officers' high-handedness by publishing photos of the boxes of ethanol with excise officers in the newspapers making it look like illegal materials were seized from the petitioner company.
Case Title: Deepak Sitaram Modhe v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 618
The Bombay High Court quashed a proclamation order against a Police Naik allegedly absconding after raping and threatening a female Police Naik who used to work with him.
Justice Sarang V Kotwal observed that the accused has to be given at least 30 days to appear from the date of publication of the proclamation, as per section 82 of the CrPC.
Case Title: Sitara Anil Sharma v. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra, Mumbai & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 619
The Bombay High Court held that the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) cannot review its own order in the guise of speaking to the minutes of the order.
Justice Madhav J Jamdar quashed an Order passed by the AGRC while speaking to the minutes of it earlier order, directing the parties to register a different agreement than the one mentioned in the original order.
Domestic Violence Case Can Be Transferred From Magistrate To Family Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 620
The Bombay High Court held that an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) before a Magistrate seeking reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 can be transferred to a Family Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section 12 under the DV Act empowers an aggrieved party or any person on their behalf to file an application to the Magistrate seeking protection orders, residence, monetary reliefs, custody and compensation under Sections 18-22 of the Act.
Justice Kamal Katha held the reliefs under the above Sections are meant to redress the breach of civil rights and even the proceedings in Family Courts are civil in nature.
"In my view, the High Court would have power to transfer the case from the Magistrate to the Family Court whether or not it has jurisdiction to try it to meet the ends of justice, to convenience the parties and more importantly to lead evidence before one Court, specially when the issues may be common, and between the same parties, to save both energy and expense, to save the precious time of Court and prevent conflicting views and multiplicity of proceedings.”
Therefore, the Family Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide reliefs sought under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act by virtue of Section 7(2) and Section 26 of the DV Act read with the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the court held.
Case Title: Mohammed Ejaj Shaikh Ismail v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 621
Following a woman a couple of times, abusing and pushing her with the bicycle can be 'annoying' acts but wouldn't constitute an offence under 354 of the IPC, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently held.
The court added that the woman failed to state if the accused touched her inappropriately or pushed a specific body part, embarrassing her.
“As regards following and abusing P.W. 1 (victim), the said act cannot be said to be capable to shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The act may be annoying but definitely would not shock the sense of decency of a woman,” it held.
Accordingly, the court acquitted a man who was convicted under Section 354 of the IPC which is the use of assault or criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty).
Case Title: Fresenisu Kabi Oncology Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 622
The Bombay High Court held that Camptothecin - a cancer drug, cannot be considered a "forest produce" under the law as it undergoes extensive chemical processing from the original raw material obtained from Narkya trees.
The court observed, "It is well known, there is a difference between physical change and chemical change. Physical change can be brought about easily and at the same time, the original material can also be brought back easily, but it is not possible in the case chemical change."
The Bench of Justices AS Gadkari and SC Chandak also held that a pharmaceutical company in possession of Camptothecin, without knowledge or evidence that the original raw material was illegally procured - cannot be prosecuted under wildlife and forest conversation laws.
The court allowed all the writ petitions filed by Fresenisu Kabi Oncology Ltd, formerly known as Dabur Pharma and its manager and quashed all criminal cases against them under the Wildlife Protection Act, Indian Forest Act, Indian Penal Code and Bombay Forest Rules.
Case Title: Gurudas Balasaheb Raut And Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 623
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a Sessions Court order directing addition of murder charge against three accused in a 2014 dowry death case in Pune observing that accused couldn't be convicted based on stray observations of the medical officer.
“Imagination cannot be taken to such an extent to prosecute the Accused for [such a] serious offence. All throughout it's the case of the prosecution that the victim has committed suicide. On stray observations of the medical officer the Accused cannot be convicted for an offence under Section 302 of IPC.”
Justice Prakash D. Naik allowed a criminal revision application filed by the accused - Gurudas Raut, Anita Raut and Archana Raut - who were charged for abetment of suicide of a married woman, Sonal. Her father had lodged a dowry harassment complaint in November 2014 after she was found dead in a well.
Initially, police had filed chargesheet under IPC Sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 498A (cruelty) and others. The Sessions Court framed charges of abetment to suicide and cruelty in December 2015.
During trial in 2017, the prosecution examined a medical officer who deposed that it takes 8-12 hours for a body to float if the person dies by drowning. Based on this, the complainant sought addition of murder charge under Section 302 IPC.
The Sessions Court allowed addition of 302 charge in August 2022, holding that the medical opinion and other material constituted sufficient ground.