Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: 23 September – 29 September, 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 485 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 496Santosh Madhukar Bhondve & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 485Volvo Group India Pvt Ltd. versus Union of India and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 486Uttam Value Steels Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 487Namdeo Bansode vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 488Mahesh Raut vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 489HDFC Bank Limited & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 490Shahid Akeel Shaikh vs. Union of India & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 491Dnyaneshwar Wakale vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 492Vijay Jawanjal vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 493Industrial Development Bank of India versus DCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 494Arshad Khalifa vs Gulzar Khalifa, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 495Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Galaxy Surfactants, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 496Judgments/Final Orders: Bombay High Court Upholds Allotment Of 'Gairan' Land For Construction Of Housing Under Prime Minister Awas YojanaCase title: Santosh Madhukar Bhondve & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 485The Bombay High Court has upheld the validity of the allotment of 'Gairan land' by the District Collector to the Municipal Corporation for the construction of houses for economically weaker section of society under the 'Prime Minister Awas Yojana' on the ground that under Section 40 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC), the State government has the right to dispose of any government land, including 'gairan land'.The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar was considering the petitioners' challenge to the District Collector's order, where a piece of land at Mauje Ravet, Taluka Haveli, Pune District was allotted to Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (respondent no. 4) for development of affordable housing under the scheme of Prime Minister Awas Yojana (PMAY).Non-Filing Of Declaration & Input-Output Ratio Is Procedural Requirement But Not Pre-Condition For Claiming Rebate On Excise Of Exported Goods: Bombay HCCase Title: Volvo Group India Pvt Ltd. versus Union of India and OrsCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 486The Bombay High Court recently clarified that just because the verification of input-output ratio was not submitted before the export of goods, it does not mean that same cannot be verified post export of goods.While giving such relaxation, the Division Bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the procedure for submitting input-output ratio is inconsequential for claiming rebate under Central Excise Act when the claim of petitioner/ assessee is only qua excise duty paid on chassis purchased and used in the manufacture of buses which are exported.Initiating Tax Proceedings After CIRP Approval Violates Section 31 IBC: Bombay High CourtCase: Uttam Value Steels Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 487The Bombay High court held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, it is binding on all creditors, including government authorities, such as the Income Tax Department. A Division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni & Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan emphasized that all claims, including tax liabilities that were not part of the approved resolution plan, are extinguished, and no fresh proceedings can be initiated for claims related to the period before the CIRP.Any And Every Cruelty Or Harassment Of Wife Will Not Attract Section 498A Of IPC: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Namdeo Bansode vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 488The Bombay High Court on Monday (September 23) while acquitting a husband convicted for abetting the suicide of his wife by torturing her, held that section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not attract in any and every harassment or type of cruelty. Single-judge Justice Sanjay Mehare sitting at Aurangabad held that to convict a person under section 498A, the prosecution must establish 'continuous' harassment.Imprisonment Does Not Restrict Individual's Right To Pursue Education: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Mahesh Raut vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 489The Bombay High Court recently observed that imprisonment of an individual does not restrict his or her right to education.A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale made the observation while ordering a Mumbai-based Law College, to admit Mahesh Raut, one of the accused in the Bhima-Koregaon case, as a student for the LLB course for the academic year 2024-2027.Bombay High Court Quashes State Minorities Commission's Notice To HDFC Bank On Complaint Of Jain Community Member Alleging HarassmentCase title: HDFC Bank Limited & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 490The Bombay High Court has quashed a show-cause notice issued by the...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: 23 September – 29 September, 2024

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags