Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 18 - August 24, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 337 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 351]Jaykumar B. Patil vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 337Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 338Aditya Ramchandra Patil vs Yuvraj Bhivaji Patil, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 339Commissioners of Customs (Export) v. Bank of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 340Narendra Bhuva vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 341M/s. Eagle Security & Personnel Services vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 342Sony Mony Electronics Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 343Deepak Babasaheb Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 344Ganesh Kumar Yadav vs Captain R Tamil Selvan, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 345Arcee Electronics vs Arceeika, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 346Sunil vs Star India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 347Dnyaneshwar vs Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 348Bhanuchandra J Doshi vs Ms Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 349Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sangathana vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 350The North Goa (Non-Gazetted) Judicial Court Employees Association vs State of Goa, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 351Judgments/Final Orders:Business Advance Granted To Shareholder Not Utilised For Company Work Will Be Treated As Deemed Dividend Under Income Tax Act: Bombay HCCase Title: Jaykumar B. Patil vs Joint Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 337The Bombay High Court has held that where a company grants an advance to one of its shareholders and such advance is not demonstrated to have been utilised for the business of the company, the amount would be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court declined to interfere with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had upheld the addition of such advances as a deemed dividend.Bombay HC Quashes Magistrate's Order Issuing Notice To HDFC MD Sashidhar Jagdishan Without Verifying Lilavati Hospital's Complaint Against HimCase Title: Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 338In an order granting relief to HDFC Bank's Managing Director, Sashidhar Jagdishan, the Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate issuing notice to him in a private complaint lodged against him at the behest of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. Notably, the complainant Trust runs the famous Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai. In its FIR, the Trust has accused Jagdishan of accepting a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore from erstwhile Trustee Chetan Mehta, for giving him financial advice and helping him to retain control over the Trust's governance. It further accused Jagdishan of interfering in its internal affairs by misusing his position as the head of the HDFC bank.MV Act | 'Accident' Includes Sudden Slipping, Involvement Of Another Vehicle Not Necessary For Claiming Compensation: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Aditya Ramchandra Patil vs Yuvraj Bhivaji PatilCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 339In a significant order, the Bombay High Court held that involvement of another vehicle for causing an accident is not necessary and a mere skidding or slipping of the motorcycle too can amount to an 'accident' making the victims entitled to compensation under Motor Vehicles Act. Noting that term accident was not defined under the Act and would include any sudden event harming a person, the high court granted compensation of Rs. 7,82,800 with @7.5% interest per annum to the kin of a woman who died in a road-accident after her saree got entangled in the chain of the motorcycle, due to which the motorcycle slipped on the road.Bank Guarantee Which Expired Almost Ten Years Before CIRP Was Initiated, Cannot Be Enforced: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Commissioners of Customs (Export) v. Bank of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 340The Bombay High Court stated that expired bank guarantee can't be enforced post CIRP (corporate insolvency resolution process). A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that, “The argument that a personal guarantee survives the CIRP does not apply in the case because the guarantee had expired even before the CIRP. During the validity period of the guarantee, admittedly, no claim was lodged by the department. This petition was instituted almost 10 years after the guarantee expired, and that too by instituting a writ petition, probably realising that a suit would be barred by limitation.”Income Tax | Sale Proceeds Of Vintage Cars Taxable Unless Assessee Proves That Car Was Used As Personal Asset: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Narendra Bhuva vs Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 341The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of vintage car taxable unless the assessee proves that the car was used as a personal asset. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne stated that the capability of a ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 18 - August 24, 2024

Narsi Benwal

Tags