Bombay High Court Weekly Round Up: June 16 - June 22, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 214 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 230]Chief Executive Officer vs Ganesh Gulabrao Nawale, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 214Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 215Bank of India vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-15, Mumbai, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 216Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax Nodal 1 Raigad Division, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 217Purple Products Private Limited vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 218Dr Subhash Ramrao Bhamre vs Election Commission of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 219Ambadas Chandrakant Aaretta vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 220SDA vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 221Board of Control for Cricket in India vs Kochi Cricket Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 222Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 223Fcbulka Advertising Pvt Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(1), 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 224M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 225NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 226NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 226 (Same Judgment)Chetan Kisan Patil vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 227Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 228XYZ Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Father vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 229Chandiram Anandram Hemnani vs Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 230Judgments & Final Orders:Payment Of Gratuity Act Overrides Other State Pension Rules: Bombay HCCase Title: Chief Executive Officer vs Ganesh Gulabrao Nawale Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 214Bombay High Court: A single judge bench of justice MS Jawalkar held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('Act'), prevails over the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 ('MCS Rules'), unless a specific exemption is provided under Section 5 of the Act. The court clarified that the mere pendency of proceedings or any minor punishment under the latter, cannot justify withholding gratuity under Section 4(6) of the Act.Bombay High Court Sets Aside Denial To Register Yamaha's 'WR' Trademark, Says Registrar Must Give Reasoned Order For Pre-Acceptance AdvertisementCase Title: Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha vs The Registrar of Trade MarksCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 215The Bombay High Court stated that the Registrar of Trademarks must give a reasoned order for pre-acceptance advertisement. Justice Manish Pitale observed that “The Registrar is required to pass a reasoned order as to why a mark is being advertised after acceptance and also a reasoned order as to why a mark is being advertised before acceptance. In fact, the Registrar has the option of directing advertisement of a mark before acceptance under proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act.”Amount Of Subsidy Received By Assessee From RBI Cannot Be Treated As 'Interest' Chargeable U/S 4 Of Income Tax Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Bank of India vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-15, MumbaiCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 216The Bombay High Court held that the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee from RBI cannot be treated as 'interest' chargeable under Section 4 of Income Tax Act. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne stated that “the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee is not relatable in loan or advance given by the assessee to the RBI and therefore, the amount of subsidy can neither be treated as commitment charges nor discount on promissory notes on bill of exchange drawn or made in India.”Cash Credit Account Cannot Be Treated As Property Of Account Holder Which Can Be Considered U/S 83 Of GST Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax Nodal 1 Raigad DivisionCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 217The Bombay High Court stated that cash credit account cannot be treated as property of account holder which can be consider under Section 83 of GST Act. The Division Bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the phrase 'including bank account' following the phrase, “any property” would mean a non-cash-credit bank account. Therefore, a “cash credit account” would not be governed by Section 83 of the MGST Act.Treaty Provisions Don't Override Customs Law: Bombay High Court Upholds SCN Issued For Alleged Misuse Of Import ExemptionsCase Title: Purple Products Private Limited vs Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 218The Bombay High Court stated that treaty provisions don't override customs law and upheld the show cause notices issued for alleged misuse of import exemptions. The Bench consists of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that based on a treaty provision that is not transformed...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round Up: June 16 - June 22, 2025

Narsi Benwal

Tags