Bombay High Court Weekly Digest: 08 July – 14 July, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 335 To 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 348Nominal Index [Citation 335 – 348]Patanjali Foods Ltd. Versus UOI, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 335Konkan LNG Limited Versus The Commissioner of State Tax. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 336X. Y. Z. vs. Dean of Vitthal Sayanna Civil Hospital & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 337Symbiosis Open Education Society and Symbiosis Skills and Professional University & Anr. vs. University Grants Commission & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 338CEAT Limited vs. Viren Mishra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 339Saraswati Santosh Rathod v. Commissioner of Police Pune City and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 340Zakaulla Khazi vs State of Goa, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 341Ivory Properties & Hotels Private Limited vs. Vasantben Ramniklal Bhuta & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 342ACIT Versus Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 343Vrindavan CHSL & Ors., State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 344Cong Ling v. FRRO, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 345Raj Shipping Agencies Ltd vs. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai , 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 346Smt. Sunita Purushottam Virgincar Versus ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 347Vivek Krishnamurari Shrivastav v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 348Judgments/Final Orders: Bombay High Court Quashes Customs Duty Reassessment Against Patanjali Foods On Crude Palm Oil ImportCase Title: Patanjali Foods Ltd. Versus UOICitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 335The Bombay High Court has quashed the customs duty reassessment against Patanjali Foods on the import of crude palm oil for home consumption. The Bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that the rate in force would be the rate that was in force on the date and time of presentation, and in Patanjali's case, since self-assessed bills of entry were already presented before the enhanced rate came into force, the rate payable would be USD 1163 PMT. The said notification enhancing duty applied only to bills of entry presented after 21:24:11 hours on May 13, 2021, and since Patanjali's four ex-bond bills of entry were presented even before 21:00 hours, the enhanced rates would not apply to Patanjali's case.Breakwater-Wall For Ship-Safety Not 'Plant And Machinery', GAIL Subsidiary Not Eligible For ITC: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Konkan LNG Limited Versus The Commissioner of State TaxCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 336The Bombay High Court has held that the breakwater wall or accropode that are essential certainly do not qualify as plant and machinery. The breakwater wall can hardly be called “plant or machinery." Accropodes lose their identity when a breakwater wall is constructed using accropode. The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that Explanation to Section 17 also provides that “plant and machinery” should be used for making outward supply of goods or services. The breakwater wall is used for protecting the vessel from tides while unloading the LNG received and not for making outward supplies of goods or services. Therefore, the petitioner does not satisfy the condition provided in the Explanation to Section 17 to be eligible for ITC.Bombay High Court Expresses Anguish Over Social Stigma Suffered By Women Due To Unwanted Pregnancies Without Any Repercussions For MenCase title: X. Y. Z. vs. Dean of Vitthal Sayanna Civil Hospital & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 337In cases of married women becoming pregnant from a man other than her husband, the biological father does not suffer the pain, and social castigation as is suffered by the mother, the Bombay High Court observed on Monday while disallowing a woman to abort her more than 26 weeks pregnancy. The woman in the present case had become pregnant after she indulged in a sexual relationship with her friend while her divorce proceedings against her husband were pending. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Neela Gokhale while denying the permission to abort the foetus, as recommended by the medical board, noted that one of the grounds on which the petitioner woman sought to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy was "social stigma.""We have given our consideration to the grounds on which the Petitioner sought permission. The main reason appears to be fear of social stigma in society coupled with her economical condition. In our view, these grounds are not included in the exceptions where the outer limit of the length of the pregnancy is lifted under the MTP Act," the bench noted.Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of UGC Regulations On Distance Learning And Online ProgrammesCase title: Symbiosis Open Education Society and Symbiosis Skills and Professional University & Anr. vs. University Grants Commission & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 338The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020, which require universities to meet specific accreditation scores or...

Bombay High Court Weekly Digest: 08 July – 14 July, 2024

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags