Bombay High Court Weekly Roundup: February 26 To March 3, 2024

Nominal Index [Citation 106 - 119] Grand Paradi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. v. Mont Blanc Properties & Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 106 State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Anil Pinto 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 107 Shendra Advisory Services P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 108 ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 109 Devika Natvarlal Rotawan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 110 Shanta Digambar Sonawane v. Union of India and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 111 Lata Rajesh Shetty @ Latha Rajesh Shetty v. Satish Surappa Poojari 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 112 Central Bureau of Investigation v. Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 113 The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. M/s. B. Arunkumar Trading Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 114 Yogesh Rajendra Mehra v. Principal Commissioner CGST & Central Excise Raigad 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 115 Eknath Ganpatrao Khadse and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 116 Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 117 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Ramchandra s/o. Madhavrao Naik and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 118 HDFC Bank Limited v. Kishore K. Mehta and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 119Reports/JudgmentsBombay High Court Declines Application For Increasing Valuation Of Suit, Says Pecuniary Jurisdiction Lies With City Civil CourtCase Title: Grand Paradi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. v. Mont Blanc Properties & Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 106The Bombay High Court held that it cannot entertain an application for increasing the valuation of a suit over which it has already lost jurisdiction due to an increase in pecuniary jurisdiction of the Mumbai City Civil Court and the consequent transfer of cases from HC to that court.It further held that allowing a court to decide an application in any suit that was already transferred to another court would set a dangerous trend.Justice Sandeep V Marne refused to entertain an application for amendment of a plaint to increase its valuation. The Bombay City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2023, had caused the suit to be transferred to the City Civil Court due to its increased pecuniary jurisdiction.Medical Negligence: Bombay High Court Upholds Doctor's Conviction For Patient's Death 40 Yrs AgoCase Title: State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Anil PintoCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 107The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a septuagenarian doctor for his negligence by not taking immediate steps to deal with a complication during a surgery, leading to the death of a patient in 1984.Justice Bharati Dangre increased the fine imposed on Dr. Anil Pinto from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 5 lakh. Out of this sum, Rs. 4.9 lakh is directed to be paid to the family of the victim.“An error of judgment on part of the professional is also not negligence per se, but when an expert surgeon like Dr. Pinto leave the patient waiting, with a spasm of a vital artery and which subsequently resulted in formation of clots, definitely amounts to negligence. The most relevant period of 12 hours was allowed to pass with no serious steps being taken, with a just wait and watch policy adopted by him”, the court observed.Share Premium Received By Issuance Of Shares Is On Capital Account And Gives Rise To No Income: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Shendra Advisory Services P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 108The Bombay High Court held that the share premium received by the issuance of shares is on the capital account and gives rise to no income.The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale observed that even if the assessee had violated the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, it would be penalized by the provisions of that Act, and it would never turn a capital receipt into a revenue receipt or vice versa. There is nothing on record from the balance sheet filed indicating that the share premium amount has been utilized for purposes other than what is prescribed in Section 78(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.S.125(3) CrPC | Magistrate Can't Order Imprisonment For More Than 12 Months' Default In Maintenance In A Single Application: Bombay High CourtCase Title: ABC v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 109The Bombay High Court ordered the release of a man sentenced to simple imprisonment of 47 months for of default in payment of interim maintenance awarded to his wife and daughter in a domestic violence case.Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh observed that under section 125(3) CrPC, the power of the Magistrate to impose punishment of imprisonment for default is restricted to 12 months, as the proviso provides a limitation period of 12 months from the due date of payment.“by limiting the application for issuance of warrant to a period of 12 months, the power of the Magistrate stands restricted to impose maximum punishment of imprisonment for period 12...

Bombay High Court Weekly Roundup: February 26 To March 3, 2024

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags