Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: February 2022 [Citations: 28-55]

Nominal Index Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v Keshar Gopal Singh Thakur UCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Ms Moonline Express Cargo Pvt Ltd vs UoI through Divisional Railway Manager Mahadev Sadhu Ingale vs The State Of Maharashtra & othrs Dr. Surendra Manjrekar vs State of Maharashtra The State of Maharashtra vs Mohammad Aabed Mohammad Ajmir Shaikh Komal Babusingh Ade and others vs State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra v. Gulab Dattu Patil & Ors Essar Shipping Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors Dhanlaxmi Chandu Devrukar vs The Town Planning Tata Sons Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income & Ors. Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and Anr. v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Aircon Beibars FZE v. Heligo Charters Private Limited Ambhika Magasvargiya Mastyavaivasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Jununwadi vs State of Maharashtra Stawan Mahila Bachat Gat vs State of Maharashtra The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of CGST & CX, Div-IX, Mumbai Central GST Commissioner Mansoorali Khan Ahmed Khan vs State of Maharashtra Somnath Laxman Giri & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. Datta Mane vs State of Maharashtra Nitesh Singh & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. Saurabh Ashok Nikam vs State of Maharashtra Amitabh Bachchan & Anr. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta vs Bhansali Productions Federation of Retail Trade vs State of Maharashtra High Court on its own motion (in the matter of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi) vs Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation & Others Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. Ramesh Tukaram Vavekar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.Round-Up 1. Loss of Ability to Perform Work Undertaken By Workman Prior to Accident Qualifies as 100% Loss Of Earning Capacity : Bombay HC Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v Keshar Gopal Singh Thakur Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 28 The Bombay High Court reiterated that the work that a victim was performing before the accident has relevance to the determination of the question as to whether he is permanently incapacitated to perform the work. The Court observed that the distinction between physical disability and functional disability has to be kept in mind while determining whether the applicant has suffered 100% loss of income. 2. Sabka Vishwas Scheme - Enquiry Initiated After Deadline Will Not Bar Filing Of Voluntary Disclosure :Bombay HC Case Title: UCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 29 The Bombay High Court ruled that initiation of investigation by the Goods and Services Tax authorities after June 30, 2019 – deadline for Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) – cannot be a bar for the authorities to consider a declaration filed by a party under the SVLDR scheme. Navi Mumbai based UCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, had on September 9, 2019, filed an Electronic Declaration form under SVLDRS-1 on the website of Central Board of Excise and Customs website under 'voluntary category' which was rejected on the ground that investigation against the petitioner had been initiated before they opted for the said scheme. 3. A Company Cannot be Blacklisted without Warning of Debarment in Show Cause Notice. Blacklisting Causes Civil Death, Clear Show Cause Notice & Due Process A Must: Bombay High Court Case Title: Ms Moonline Express Cargo Pvt Ltd vs UoI through Divisional Railway Manager Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 30 Observing that an entity cannot be blacklisted from participating in future contracts without being allowed a proper opportunity to defend itself and without following the due process of law, the Bombay High Court granted interim relief to a company in a contract with the Railways. The court held that the railway officials had not given the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend his stand by failing to mention the possibility of debarment in the show-cause notice. 4. Subsequent Reconstruction Of File Records Doesn't Change Original Filing Date: Bombay High Court Case Tile: Mahadev Sadhu Ingale vs The State Of Maharashtra & others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 31 The limitation period for considering an appeal (reference) against a land acquisition order must be calculated from the date an application was first filed and not from the date a missing appeal copy was reconstructed and submitted by the applicant, the Bombay High Court held. The court set aside the Deputy Collector's (Sangli) order rejecting an application to refer the acquisition proceedings to a competent court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It observed that merely because the documents were not traceable in the Deputy Collector's office and the petitioner had to reconstruct them, it didn't...

Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: February 2022 [Citations: 28-55]

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags