Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: April 22 - April 28, 2024

Nominal Index [Citation 221 - 234]Telex Advertising Pvt Ltd v. Central Railway 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 221Glencore India Pvt Ltd v. Amma Lines Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 222Mahendra Bansilal Patil v. Commissioner of Transport & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 223PCIT v. Tata Steel 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 224Sham v. Walve 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 225Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak v. Registrar General, Bombay High Court and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 226Indus Towers Limited v. Rajendra Patil (Yedravkar) and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 227Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Dattatraya Ganpat Bankhele 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 228Bhushan Industries v. Lohasingh Ramavadh Yadav 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 229Taher Fakhruddin Saheb v. Mufaddal Burhanuddin Saifuddin 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 230Nilesh Chandrakant Kamble v. MMRDA Govt of Maharashtra & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 231XYZ v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 232Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 233Shramik Janata Sangh and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 234Reports/JudgmentsPower Of General Manager Of Employer To Confirm Nomination Of Arbitrator By The Contractor Runs Contrary To Principles Of Impartiality And Independence: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Telex Advertising Pvt Ltd v. Central RailwayCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 221The High Court of Bombay held that the power of General Manager of the employer to confirm nomination of arbitrator by the Contractor runs contrary to principles of impartiality and independence. It held that nomination by a party of its arbitrator cannot be subject to approval by the other party.The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that for an appointment of arbitrator from a panel unilaterally prepared by a party, it must be broad and diverse to allow free choice to the other party and any deviation would be hit by Section 12(5) of the Act.Arbitrator's Mandate Would Not Be Terminated When The Delays In Arbitral Proceedings Are Not Attributable To It: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Glencore India Pvt Ltd v. Amma Lines LimitedCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 222The High Court of Bombay held that an arbitrator's mandate would not terminate when the proceedings are not completed within timelines agreed by the parties, if the delays in the conduct of the proceedings are attributable to the party seeking termination of the mandate.The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that generally, in an arbitration not governed by Section 29A, the arbitrator's mandate expires upon its failure to conclude the proceedings within the time period agreed by the parties, however, it would not hold true when the tribunal acted expeditiously and the delays in proceedings were on account of fault of the parties themselves.Bombay High Court Strikes Down State's Circular Imposing Additional Conditions For Registration Of Govt Employee Vehicles Under “BH Series”Case Title: Mahendra Bansilal Patil v. Commissioner of Transport & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 223The Bombay High Court quashed the State government's circular providing additional conditions for registration of vehicles belonging to government employees under the “BH series”.A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla allowed a writ petition filed by Civil Judge Mahendra Bansilal Patil challenging the Commissioner of Transport's refusal to register his newly purchased motor vehicle under the 'BH series'. “in the absence of any power conferred on the Commissioner to super impose conditions on any applicant seeking registration of the vehicles, which are not conditions under Central Rules (Supra), the Commissioner could not have issued such circular”, the court observed.Tata Steel Entitled To Treat Contribution Of Rs. 212.52 Crores To CAF As Revenue Expenditure: Bombay High CourtCase Title: PCIT v. Tata SteelCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 224The Bombay High Court held that Tata Steel is entitled to treat the contribution of Rs. 212.52 crores to the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) as revenue expenditure.The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dr. Prafulla R. Hede, and another has accepted that a contribution to CAF will be revenue expenditure and not capital in nature.Error On Part Of Auditor Should Be Accepted As Reasonable Cause Shown By Trust Management For Delay Condonation: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Sham v. WalveCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 225The Bombay High Court held that the error on the part of the auditor cannot be rejected but should be accepted as a reasonable cause shown by the trust management.The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that an assessee, a public charitable trust with almost over thirty years, which otherwise satisfies the condition for availing exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation, especially when the legislature has conferred...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: April 22 - April 28, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags