Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 7 - July 13

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 259 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 280]Sujal Mangala Birwadkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 259UNS Women Legal Association (Regd) vs Bar Council of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 260Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 261Srinwati Mukherji vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 262Ritesh Haldar vs Elite Housing LLP, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 263M/s. Skypak Services Specialists Limited vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 264Darshan Singh Parmar vs The Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 265SKP vs KSP, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 266GST Notice U/S 79(1)(c) Can't Be Issued Directly To Bank; Must Be Served To Actual Taxpayer: Bombay High CourtNagani Akram Mohammad Shafi vs Union of India,2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 267Grand Centrum Realty LLP vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 268Shramik Co-operative Housing Society vsState of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 269M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 270M/s. Poonawalla Estate Stud & Agricultural Farm vs Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 271PVR Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 272Raghavendra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 273M/s. Bassein Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 274M/s. Galaxy International vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 275Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Central Information Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 276DVM Patel vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 277M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 278GlobeOp Financial Services (India) vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 279Sujata Vilas Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 280Judgments/ Final Orders:Child Of Inter-Caste Parents, Raised Alone By Backward-Caste Parent Can Be Considered 'Backward' Only If He Faced Caste Bias: Bombay HCCase Title: Sujal Mangala Birwadkar vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 259The Bombay High Court has dismissed a student's plea seeking a caste validity certificate under the Scheduled Caste category based on his mother's caste, holding that there was no material to show he suffered any discrimination, deprivation, or disadvantage to warrant such recognition. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale was hearing a writ petition filed by Sujal Mangala Birwadkar challenging the order dated April 15, 2024, passed by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, which had rejected his claim for recognition as belonging to the Chambhar (SC) community.POSH Act Won't Apply To Sexual Harassment Complaints Of Women Advocates To Bar Council Against Other Lawyers : Bombay High CourtCase Title: UNS Women Legal Association (Regd) vs Bar Council of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 260The Bombay High Court on Monday held that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) 2013 (POSH Act) will not apply on the complaints lodged by female advocate members of the Bar Council of India (BCI) or the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) against other advocates. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne held that the provisions of the POSH Act will not apply to the complaints of female lawyer members of the BCI and BCMG as there is no "employee-employer" relationship between them.[Income Tax Act] Reassessment Beyond 4 Years Requires Specific Non-Disclosure By Assessee, Not Mere Allegations: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 261The Bombay High Court stated that reassessment under Section 147 Income Tax Act beyond 4 years requires specific non-disclosure by assessee, not mere bald allegations. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for the reopening of assessment proceedings. This section gives discretion to the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the assessment proceedings when he/she has reason to believe that some of the income has escaped assessment.Husband Can't Be Asked To Pay Instalments For Under-Construction Flat Under DV Act, Not 'Shared Household': Bombay High CourtCase Title: Srinwati Mukherji vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 262A flat under construction, though registered jointly in the name of the spouses, cannot be termed a 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV) 2005 and thus, a husband cannot be directed to pay instalments of such a flat, held the Bombay High Court recently. Justice Manjusha Deshpande noted that the flat in question was still under construction and that the couple has not resided in the same yet.Right To Alternate Accommodation Under Redevelopment Plan Is Conferred Upon Person In Possession Of Premises, Not Owner: Bombay High...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 7 - July 13

Narsi Benwal

Tags