Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 25 To October 01, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 453 - 463]Milind Dashrath Narvekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 453Jigna Jitendra Vora v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 454Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sou. Jyoti Vithoba Nahire 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 455Pragati Pre Fab India Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 456ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 457SNV Aviation Pvt. Ltd. v. Capt. Gareema Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 458John Cockerill India Limited v. Sanjay Kamalakar Navare 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 459Shishirkumar Gopalchandra Padhy v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 460Guljama Shah Jahir Shah v. Shri Sadguru Kaka Stone Crusher 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 461Manoj Agarwal and Anr. v. Fashion TV Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 462ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 463Reports/JudgmentsBombay High Court Paves Way For Allotment Of Houses To Society Of High Court EmployeesCase Title: Milind Dashrath Narvekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 453The Bombay High Court cleared the way for construction of housing units for a society of 398 state government employees working in the High Court.A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata directed MHADA to allot a 2,769.75 square meter plot of land to members of the society without inviting applications from other High Court employees or reserving 50 percent of the flats for public purpose. The court opined that the petitioners agreed to scale down from their original demand, thus releasing additional areas for the availability of the 50 percent reservation. The court agreed that the imposition of 50 percent reservation condition would result in flats of a meaningless size and potentially exclude eligible members.Bombay High Court Orders Passport Authorities To Reconsider Former Journalist Jigna Vora’s Plea For PassportCase Title: Jigna Jitendra Vora v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 454The Bombay High Court frowned at CBI’s unreasonable approach while opposing former journalist Jigna Vora’s plea for a fresh passport and directed passport authorities to consider her application afresh.A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse took exception to the CBI’s constant objection in granting her relief despite no pending appeals against her acquittal. “The object of Section 437A is to secure the presence of an accused before the higher forum, after the acquittal. The petitioner had infact furnished PR Bond of Rs. 50,000/- before the trial Court. In the present case, the petitioner infact, appeared before the High Court, pursuant to the notice issued in the appeal filed by the CBI. In these circumstances, the CBI ought to have been fair and ought to have accordingly given a report, instead of stating that the case matter is still pending in CBI and her file should not be cleared, when infact, there was no proceeding pending before any Court of law, at the relevant time”, the court observed.Vora, a former deputy editor of Asian Age newspaper was accused by the CBI of giving crucial information about journalist J Dey to alleged gangster Chhota Rajan, which led to the senior journalist’s murder in June 2011. In 2018, a special court found Rajan and eight others guilty under sections 302, 120-B of the IPC and sections 3(1)(i), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) and sentenced them to life imprisonment for Dey's murder. Vora and one more accused were acquitted. Her acquittal was later upheld by the High Court in 2019.MV Act | Award Can Be Stayed Even If Insurer's Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing Appeal Is Pending: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sou. Jyoti Vithoba NahireCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 455The Bombay High Court held that an ad-interim/interim stay can be granted on an award passed under the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) even if the appellants’ application for condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal against such award is pending.Justice Abhay Ahuja held was dealing with interim applications filed by three insurance companies and one individual in separate first appeals seeking a stay on execution of awards passed under the MV Act).The applicants were seeking to file appeals challenging judgments and awards passed under the Motor Vehicles Act. These appeals, filed under Section 173 of the MV Act, were time-barred, i.e., they were filed after the stipulated limitation period.Assessee Entitled To The Benefit Of VsV Act During The Pendency Of Prosecution Not Involving 'Tax Arrears': Bombay High CourtCase Title: Pragati Pre Fab India Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCITCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 456The Bombay High Court directed the department to decide the application filed by the assessee in conformity with the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020.The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice N. K. Gokhale observed that the assessee had paid self-assessment tax but has not paid the demand made due ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 25 To October 01, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags