Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: July 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 314 – 350]XXX vs State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 314State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Sudhir Bhagwat Kalekar 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 315Bharat Parihar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 316Lakhan Pralhad Misal v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 317Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 318SLS Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 319The Commissioner of Income International Taxation-1 v. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerce Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 320Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Colgate Palmolive Marketing SDN BHD 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 321Ronak Industries v. Assistant Commissioner 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 322Sunlight Cable Industries Versus The Commissioner of Customs 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 323Gyan SP Developers LLP v. Tahsildar 1 (Special Class), SRA and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 324Sagar Chandramauli Ponnala v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 325Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 326Vishal Kanhaiyalal Shrimali v. Union Territory of Daman and Diu 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 327Vijay S/o. Harinarayan Choudhary v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 328Dr. Sandeep S/o Ashokrao Ragade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 329Jay Pramod Rikame and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 330Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle – 27(3) and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 331Dr. Jaysiddheshwar Shivacharya Mahaswamiji v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 332Media Net Software Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 333Nawab Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 334Rohit Manohar Joshi and Ors. v. Tree Authority Thane Municipal Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 335Ashik Ramjan Ansari v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 336Mukand Limited Versus The Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 337Jumma Masjid Trust Committee v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 338Abbott India Limited v. Dipak s/o Arunrao Deshmukh 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 339Aslam Salim Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 340Shaila Jitendra Kanthe v. Chief Minister of State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 341Melwyn Isidore Fernandes and Others vs State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 342Usha Eswar v. Rajeshwari Menon 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 343Shramik Janta Sangh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 344Mukand Limited Versus The Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 345PCIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 346Indus Towers Ltd., Pune (Formerly, Bharti Infratel Ltd., Pune) v. Grampanchayat, Chikhalhol, Tal. Khanapur, Dist. Sangli and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 347Santosh Pandurang Parte v. Amar Bahadur Maurya and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 348Kishor Shivdas Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 349Ramchandra Maruti Yedage v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 350Reports/JudgmentsJuvenile Justice Board's Decision To Try Child As Adult Must Be Transparent And Fair: Bombay High CourtCase Title: XXX vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 314Owing 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.”Bombay High Court Sets Aside Tribunal Order Asking State To ‘Correct’ ACP’s DoB Two Months Before His RetirementCase Title: State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Sudhir Bhagwat KalekarCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 315Observing 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 CourtCase Title:...

Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: July 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags