Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 24 – March 02, 2025

2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 72 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 80Nominal Index:Rupchand Shende vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 72Oxford University Press v. DCIT, Int. Tax Circle 3 (2)(2) & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 73Systra MVA Consulting (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 74Hanumant Naik vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 75Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni v. ITAT Pune Bench & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 76Satish Poptlal Shah & Anr vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 77Pooja Popalghat vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 78Sameer Mohammad Yusuf Patel vs Panvel Municipal Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 79Priyanka Bannerji vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 80Judgments/Final Orders:If A Man's Intention While Making Promise To Marry Is To Deceive A Girl Into Sexual Relations, Her Consent Gets Vitiated: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Rupchand Shende vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 72When the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive her to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a 'misconception of fact' and the same 'vitiates' the girl's consent, the Bombay High Court held recently while upholding the rape conviction of a man, accused of raping a minor.Change In Tax Rate In Future AYs Not Ground For Reassessment Without Fulfilling Jurisdictional Parameters U/S 148 Income Tax Act: Bombay HCCase title: Oxford University Press v. DCIT, Int. Tax Circle 3 (2)(2) & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 73The Bombay High Court has made it clear that merely because the tax rate which is applicable on an assessee changes in future assessment years (AYs), is not a ground to initiate reassessment action against it for previous AYs, unless the 'jurisdictional parameters' of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are fulfilled.Discontinuing Contract Without Giving Reasons Arbitrary: Bombay HC Quashes MMRDA's Contract Termination Notice For Mumbai Metro ConsultancyCase title: Systra MVA Consulting (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development AuthorityCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 74The Bombay High Court has set aside a notice issued by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) that terminated a tender contract with Systra MVA Consulting (India) Pvt Ltd for the appointment of General Consultant for Mumbai Metro Line, ruling that the cancellation was arbitrary and unreasonable.Can't Seek Defence Of Illiteracy To Perform Illegal Act: Bombay HC Rejects Man's Plea Seeking ₹5 Crore For Removal Of Illegal StructureCase Title: Hanumant Naik vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 75While observing that a person cannot be permitted to perform an illegal act in the garb of being "illiterate", the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (February 25) dismissed a man's plea who sought Rs 5 crore compensation from the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) for demolishing his "unauthorised" structure.ITAT Cannot Perpetuate Ex-Parte Order: Bombay High Court Orders Tribunal To Grant Opportunity Of Hearing To Assessee Before Proceeding On MeritsCase title: Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni v. ITAT Pune Bench & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 76The Bombay High Court has disapproved of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal against an ex-parte order passed against a former employee of Pfizer Healthcare without providing him an opportunity of hearing. Stating that ITAT cannot “perpetuate” the ex-parte order, a division bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna directed the Tribunal to hear the employee de novo, so far as his prayer for the grant of exemption under section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned.'Speculative Litigation': Bombay High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Exemplary Costs For Ownership Claim On Land Acquired In 1947Case title: Satish Poptlal Shah & Anr vs. State of Maharashtra & OrsCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 77The Bombay High Court imposed Rs. 2 lakh in exemplary costs on the petitioners for 'taking chances' with the court process by filing a petition claiming ownership of land acquired in 1947, offering no explanation for the 77-year delay and making contradictory pleadings and unverified averments.'Natural Guardian' Under Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act Can Act As 'Manager' Of Joint Family Properties For Herself & Minors: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Pooja Popalghat vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 78The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that a natural guardian being the eldest member of a Hindu joint family can exercise powers to deal with the rights of the minors in the joint family, keeping in mind the aspect of legal necessity and benefit of the minor.Bombay High Court Slaps Rs 1 Lakh Costs On Man For Audio-Recording Court Proceedings On Mobile PhoneCase Title: Sameer Mohammad Yusuf Patel vs Panvel Municipal...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 24 – March 02, 2025

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags