Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 15 - April 21, 2024

Nominal Index [Citation 200 - 220]Sumit Suresh More v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 200Arun Gulab Gawli v. State of Maharashtra 201Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v. ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 202Dipak P. Mali v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 203Durgadas s/o. Sunil Saindane v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 204Ramesh Sippy v. Sunhil Ajit Sippy & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 205Ram Kotumal Issrani v. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 206Bhausaheb Bhujangrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 207Commissioner of Income Tax Central v. Income Tax Settlement Commission 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 208Tiger Aspect Kids & Family Limited v. Mr. Bean Trampoline Park / Mr. Been Trampoline Park 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 209M/s. Agarwal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Assist. Commissioner of State Tax. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 210Khanjan Jagadishkumar Thakkar v. Waahiid Ali Khan & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 211Ceat Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 212Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 213Nijam Asgar Hashmi v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 214Sheela Chowgule v. Vijay V. Chowgule 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 215Shikha Lodha v. Suketu Shah and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 216ABC v. XYZ 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 217Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 218NP Enterprises v. General Manager, Western Railway 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 219Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 220Reports/JudgmentsVery Grave Offence, No Bail Despite Delay In Trial: Bombay High Court To Man Who Allegedly Murdered Neighbour To Fake Own Death For Insurance MoneyCase Title: Sumit Suresh More v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 200The Bombay High Court denied bail to a man who allegedly staged his own death by murdering his neighbour, in order to claim the benefit of his life insurance worth Rs. 1.5 Crores.Justice Madhav J Jamdar found the alleged offence grave enough to deny bail despite a delay in the trial.“The Applicant is incarcerated since about 4 years and 2 months and therefore Mr. Chavan, learned Counsel for the Applicant is correct in contending that there is a delay in conducting the trial. However, as noted herein above, the offence is very grave and serious. It is a pre-planned crime. To avail the benefit of life insurance policy of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, an innocent person was killed to portray that the Accused No.1 had met with an accident and that in the said accident, the car in which Accused No.1 was travelling, caught fire and the said car as well as Accused No.1 got burnt...Accordingly, the Bail Application is rejected.”MCOCA Convicts Not Excluded Under 2006 Remission Policy: Bombay High Court While Allowing Arun Gawli's Early ReleaseCase Title: Arun Gulab Gawli v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 201The Bombay High Court held that life convicts under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) are not excluded from the revised remission policy of 2006.A division bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi sitting at Nagpur allowed premature release of gangster-turned-politician Arun Gawli convicted in 2012 under MCOCA observing –“the petitioner is entitled to the benefits flowing from the remission policy dated 10.01.2006, which was prevailing on the date of his conviction. We also hold that by applying the rule of ejusdem generis, convicts of MCOC Act cannot be excluded from availing the benefits of the said policy.”Filing Delayed Returns, Power To Condone Delay Is Conferred On CBDT To Ensure Substantial Justice; Bombay High CourtCase Title: Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v. ACITCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 202Explaining the scope of powers u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income tax Act, the Bombay High Court clarified that the legislature has conferred power on the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent no.3) to condone the delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing the matter on merits.Hence, the High Court observed that routinely passing the order without appreciating the reasons why the provisions for condonation of delay has been provided in the statute itself, defeats the cause of justice. A Division Bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale reiterated that “CBDT should keep in mind, while considering an application of this nature, that the power to condone the delay has been conferred is to enable the authorities to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing the matters on merits and while considering these aspects, the authorities are expected to bear in mind that no applicant would stand to benefit by lodging delayed returns”.Prima Facie Rigorous Conditions For Bail Won't Apply: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To MCOCA Accused With 24 Antecedents Of Chain SnatchingCase Title: Dipak P. Mali v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 203The Bombay High Court granted bail to an...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 15 - April 21, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags