Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up August 28 To September 3, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 394 - 408]UPL Limited v. UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 394Mohan Yeshwant Padawe & Ors v. State Of Maharashtra & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 395Kumar Kunal v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 396Heena Afrin Huzaifa Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 397Ankiti Bose v. Mahesh Murthy and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 398Sandeep Pandurang Patil v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 399ARG Outlier Media Private Limited v. Rayadu Vision Media Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 400Commissioner, Kolhapur Mahanagarpalika v. Shashikala Vijay Bhore 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 401Sanjay Katkar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 402The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 403Dattaprasad Kamat v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 404Ajay Uddhav Narhe & Anr. v. Uttam Patil, Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation) & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 40522Light v. OESPL Pvt Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 406Memon Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Prema Amarlal Gera & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 407Uday Chari v. State of Goa and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 408Reports/JudgmentsOfficers Not Diligently Discharging Duties, Playing With Public Revenue, MoF Should Take Serious View: Bombay High CourtCase Title: UPL Limited v. UOICitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 394The Bombay High Court held that the Ministry of Finance is responsible for the officers who are not diligently discharging vital duties and who, in fact, are playing with the public revenue."We take judicial notice of a series of petitions reaching this Court on the ground that the concerned jurisdictional officers exercising such enormous powers not only under the Finance Act, 1994, but also under the other Central Acts, for reasons which are totally ill-conceived and contrary to law, have not adjudicated and/or taken forward the show cause notice for unduly long periods, and in some cases about 10 years," the bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain observed.Transit Buildings Inherently Temporary Structures, Cannot Be Repaired Or Made Permanent: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Mohan Yeshwant Padawe & Ors v. State Of Maharashtra & OrsCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 395The Bombay High Court held that transit buildings cannot be repaired or made permanent since they are inherently temporary and designed for short-term use.The division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata added that these buildings were not subject to structural audit regulations.“Transit buildings are by the very nature of their construction and by structural design temporary and not meant to last beyond three to five years. There is no question of repairs or of these buildings being made permanent. Even the planning permissions that are granted for transit buildings are not granted in the same manner or subject to the same stringent requirements as they are for permanent constructions…the attempt to apply the law on the TAC in structural audits to transit buildings is not only an inversion of law but is a perversion of the law.” The observation came in a writ petition filed by four residents against demolition notices for a transit building constructed in 2006. The bench found that the buildings were built with a life of five years.GMAT Exam Scam: Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To AccusedCase Title: Kumar Kunal v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 396The Bombay High Court denied anticipatory bail to one Kumar Kunal, accused of remotely accessing the laptop of GMAT exam candidates through Any Desk app, solving the papers, and manipulating results.Justice Amit Borkar observed that the custodial interrogation of Kunal is necessary in light of WhatsApp chats between him and one Shantanu, a victim of the scam.“prima facie, it appears that the relevant extract of diary maintained by the principal accused indicate payment of Rs.1,47,000/- and Rs.2,56,000/- to the applicant by cash. The prosecution case gets strength from the WhatsApp conversion between the applicant and witness Shantanu who is one of the victim…In the context of observations made in the said order the WhatsApp chat between witness Shantanu and the applicant does have material bearing on the investigation. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary”, the court held.Mere Use Of Deceased Brother's SIM Card Not An Offence: Bombay High Court Quashes Cheating CaseCase Title: Heena Afrin Huzaifa Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 397Observing that mere use of deceased brother's SIM card does not constitute an offence, the Bombay High Court quashed a cheating case against a doctor filed by her sister-in-law for alleged use of her deceased husband’s SIM card and sale of his movable assets without consent.A division bench of Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice RN Laddha in a writ petition filed by the accused seeking quashing of the case remarked that prima facie, the proceedings were initiated solely out of ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up August 28 To September 3, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags