Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: May 1, 2023 To May 7, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 223 - 240]Areeb Hasan Ansari Najeeb Hasan Ansari v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 223Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 224Arjun Amarjeet Rampal v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 225Sayli B Parkhi v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 226M/s Bharti Telemedia Ltd. v. State of Goa 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 227Anubha Shrivastava Sahai v. National Testing Agency 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 228L & T Finance Limited v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 229Gurumahima Heights Co-operative Housing Society Ltd v. M/s Admirecon Infrastructure Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 230Imran Iqbal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 231Chanda Kochhar v. ICICI Bank Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 232Amol Ramesh Bole and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 233Rana Kapoor v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 234Palmview Investments Overseas Limited v. Ravi Arya 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 235Applause Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Meta Platforms Inc. and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 236MV Golden Pride v. GAC Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 237Alice D’souza v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 238Buddheshwar S/o Babulal Lilhare v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 239XYZ v. ABC 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 240Reports/JudgmentsCaste Validity Certificates Obtained After Admission: Bombay High Court Orders One Time Regularisation Against Reserved SeatsCase Title: Areeb Hasan Ansari Najeeb Hasan Ansari v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 223The Bombay High Court regularized the admissions of students in various health science institutes as a one-time measure. The Admission Regulation Authority (ARA) had cancelled their admissions under reserved categories as they did not have validity certificates at the time of admission.A division bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Sanjay A Deshmukh sitting at Aurangabad also imposed costs on the institutes for admitting the students against the rules and not communicating ARA’s decision to the students.[Copyright Act] Bombay HC Restrains Radio Channels From Broadcasting Songs Without Equal Royalty To Authors, Says Position Of Law Prima Facie ChangedCase Title: Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 224The Bombay High Court temporarily restrained FM radio stations - Radio Tadka and Radio City from broadcasting songs authored by the members of Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS) without paying royalties to the authors.Justice Manish Pitale held that prima facie, the original authors (authors, composers, publishers etc.) of the literary or musical works used in films and sound recordings are entitled to royalties equal to the producer for utilization of their works. The court said that prima facie, due to a 2012 amendment in the Copyright Act, the original authors, who were earlier not entitled to royalty once their work became part of a film, can now claim royalty for any use of their work, except screening in a cinema hall in a movie. The amendment has fundamentally changed the manner in which the rights of authors of original works have to be treated, the court added.Arjun Rampal Couldn't Clear Tax Dues Under SVLDR Scheme Due To Technical Glitch, Not At Fault: Bombay High Court Grants ReliefCase Title: Arjun Amarjeet Rampal v. Union of India and Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 225The Bombay High Court permitted actor Arjun Rampal to belatedly avail of the Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019 to settle service tax dues for the year 2016-2017.A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Abhay Ahuja observed that Rampal couldn’t be denied benefits of the scheme due to a technical glitch for no fault of his.Therefore, the court directed authorities to allow Rampal to make the challan payment of Rs. 2.74 lakhs under the SVLDR, settle his tax dues of over Rs. 9.16 lakhs and to issue the necessary discharge certificate under the scheme.Eating House License Doesn’t Automatically Include License To Serve Hookah: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Sayli B Parkhi v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 226The Bombay High Court held that an Eating House Licence granted to a restaurateur doesn’t deem to include a permit to serve ‘Hookah’ or ‘Herbal Hookah’ under section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.Holding otherwise would lead to “absolute nuisance” especially since neither an eating house nor the civic body can control the ingredients of hookah once it is served to the customer, a division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and RN Laddha said.Bombay High Court Upholds The Validity Of Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000Case Title: M/s Bharti Telemedia Ltd. v. State of GoaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 227The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000.The bench of Justice M. S....

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: May 1, 2023 To May 7, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags