Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: September 18 To September 24, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 443 - 452]Undercarriage and Tractor Parts Pvt. Ltd. v. DRP 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 443G. Chandrashekharan Shivam And Ors. v. Rajkumar Agarwal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 444Shivraj Gorakh Satpute v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 445Ashraf Chitalwala v. DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 446Poonam Basak v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 447Navigns Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Sameer Pandharinath Khandekar and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 448South Port Limited v. State of Goa 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 449Mehul Choksi v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 450Mahesh Sitaram Raut v. National Investigation Agency 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 451Hemant Dinkar Kandlur v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 452Reports/JudgmentsDRP Can Give Directions Only In Pending Assessment Proceedings: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Undercarriage and Tractor Parts Pvt. Ltd. v. DRPCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 443The Bombay High Court has held that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) could give directions only in pending assessment proceedings.The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice N. K. Gokhale has observed that once an assessment order is passed, rightly or wrongly, the assessment proceedings come to an end. Therefore, the DRP would have no power to pass any directions contemplated under sub-section 5 of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act.[Composite Negligence] Motor Accident Victim Can Choose To Claim Compensation From Owner Of One Of Two Vehicles Involved: Bombay High CourtCase Title: G. Chandrashekharan Shivam And Ors. v. Rajkumar Agarwal & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 444The Bombay High Court held that a claimant in a motor accident case is not obligated to claim compensation from owner of the vehicle he was travelling in and is allowed to only seek compensation from owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident.Justice Sandeep Marne observed that in cases of composite negligence, the claimant has the right to sue only one of the joint tortfeasors.S.42 NDPS Act | No Reason For Search After Sunset Without Warrant: Bombay HC Grants Bail To Man Booked For Alleged Possession Of 50 Kgs GanjaCase Title: Shivraj Gorakh Satpute v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 445The Bombay High Court granted bail to a 22-year-old man booked for possession of commercial quantity of Ganja after 50 Kgs Ganja was allegedly seized from his home between sunset and sunrise based on information given by another accused.Justice Anuja Prabhudessai observed that the seizure was not a chance recovery, and there was nothing to show the officer's reasonable belief that obtaining a warrant for search between sunset and sunrise would allow the offender to escape.Bombay High Court Quashes Re-Assessment Order Based On Change Of Opinion Without Any Tangible New InformationCase Title: Ashraf Chitalwala v. DCITCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 446The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment order based on a change of opinion without surfacing any tangible new information.The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice N. K. Gokhale observed that the petitioner has fully and truly disclosed all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. The AO issued the first assessment order after carefully scrutinising the material furnished by the petitioner. The respondent department has failed to furnish any reasons for reopening as mandated by law. There is not even a whisper in the entire communication trail as to what was not disclosed.IBC | Only Whole-Time Members And Not Chairperson Of IBBI Can Pass Order In Disciplinary Proceedings: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Poonam Basak v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 447The Bombay High Court held that only Whole-Time members and not the Chairperson of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) can pass an order in disciplinary proceedings under IBC.A division bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice MM Sathaye held that, prima facie, the Chairperson and Whole Time Members were distinct categories, as the nomination of Whole Time Members and the appointment of the Chairperson are separate processes under IBC. The court noted that considering the Chairperson a whole-time member effectively means there are 6 Whole Time Members instead of five on the IBBI board, which would contravene Section 189 of IBC.Families Visiting Ancestral Village During Ganpati Festival Common Practice In Maharashtra, Not Copyrightable Theme: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Navigns Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Sameer Pandharinath Khandekar and Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 448The Bombay High Court held that there can be no copyright in the theme of ‘families going to their ancestral village in Konkan during the Ganpati festival’ because in Maharashtra, family members do visit their ancestral places during Ganpati festival.Justice Manish Pitale made this observation while refusing to stay the release of a web series titled “Devak Kalji” in a copyright infringement suit filed by...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: September 18 To September 24, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags