Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 4 - August 10, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 320 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 326]Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar vs Sandip Madhav Khase, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 320Pune Municipal Corporation vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 321Sumanbai vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 322Sachin Malpani vs Nilam Patil, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 323FICCI vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 324Sarva Shramik Sangh vs The Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 325Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 326Judgments/Final Orders:Trial Court Cannot Waive Notice Period For Filing Suit Against Authorities Under Zilla Parishads & Panchayat Samitis Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar vs Sandip Madhav KhaseCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 320The Bombay High Court has held that trial courts have no jurisdiction to dispense with the statutory notice requirement under Section 280 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act and Section 180 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, unlike Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides a limited discretion. It held that non-compliance with these mandatory provisions renders the suit non-maintainable.Income Tax | S.194C & S.194LA Would Not Apply When TDR Certificates Are Issued In Lieu Of Compensation: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Pune Municipal Corporation vs Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 321The Bombay High Court held that Section 194C and Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act would not apply when TDR Certificates are issued in lieu of compensation. A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla agreed with the assessee that the words “or by any other mode” appearing in Section 194C would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft”. Similarly, in Section 194LA, the words “or by any other mode” would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft."[Land Acquisition Act] Reference Application Can Be Filed U/S 28A If Earlier Application U/S 18 Was Not Decided On Merits: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Sumanbai vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 322The Bombay High Court has held that an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is maintainable even if the claimant had previously filed a reference under Section 18, provided that the said reference was not decided on merits. The Court ruled that a dismissal of a reference on technical grounds, without adjudication, does not bar the landowner from seeking re-determination under Section 28-A.Maintenance Charges Under Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act Cannot Be Modified By Flat Owners' Resolution: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Sachin Malpani vs Nilam PatilCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 323The Bombay High Court has held that apartment owners in a condominium must pay maintenance charges for common areas in proportion to their undivided interest, as required under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. It ruled that this statutory requirement cannot be modified or overridden by resolutions passed by the association of apartment owners seeking to impose equal charges irrespective of unit size.'No Distinction Between Online Movie Ticket Booking & Offline Ticket Booking For Entertainment Tax Purposes': Bombay High CourtCase Title: FICCI vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 324The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the seventh proviso inserted into Section 2(b) of the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act, which brings within its ambit the additional amount charged by cinema proprietors for online booking of movie tickets. It observed that the activity of online booking is not different from an offline booking and can be taxed under Entry 62 of List II'Delay In Deciding Reference Cannot Be Grounds To Deny Relief': Bombay High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Workers Terminated In 1995Case Title: Sarva Shramik Sangh vs The CommissionerCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 325The Bombay High Court has held that delay in adjudication of an industrial reference cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny just relief to workmen whose services were illegally terminated. The Court observed that when the delay is not attributable to the workmen and the termination is found to be in violation of law, reinstatement is the appropriate remedy.Serving Order On Chartered Accountant Doesn't Count As Service On Assessee: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 326The Bombay High Court held that serving order on chartered accountant doesn't count as service on assessee. The issue before the bench was whether the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal when served upon the Chartered Accountant is sufficient service and whether it...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 4 - August 10, 2025

Narsi Benwal

Tags