Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: May, 2022 [Citation 170-198]

Nominal Index Sanjeev Kumar Versus UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 170 Mohd. Luthpura Vajidali Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 171 Adv. Firoz Babulal Sayyed Vs. The Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 172 Dr P Varavara Rao & othrs vs State of Maharashtra and othrs 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 173 Mubeen Kadar Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra, and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 174 Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. , with connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 175 Alnesh Akil Somji Versus The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 176 Govind Ramling Solpure and Ors. versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 177 Omkar Mahadeo Supekar vs MCGM 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 178 Armstrong Pure Water Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 179 Amol Kashinath Vyavhare Versus Purnima Chaugule Shrirangi And Others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 180 The State of Maharashtra Vs Guddu Krish Yadav, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 181 Ansari Mohammed Zaki vs The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 182 Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd. vs The Chief Conciliator, under Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 183 Sandeep Dwellers Private Limited Vs The State of Maharashtra & ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 184 Bafna Motors Private Limited versus Amanulla Khan, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 185 M/s Atul & Arkade Realty v. I.A. & I.C. Pvt. Ltd., Arbitration Application No. 72 of 2013, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 186 Prajith Thayyil Kallil S/o Jogesh K J Versus The State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 187 Vapi Infrastructure and Industrial Township LLP Versus Income Tax Officer Ward, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 188 ABC Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 189 Prem Rajendra Prasad Dubey vs The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 190 Ganpatrao Janardhan Patil vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 191 Bhavani Gems Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 192 Praful A. Mehta versus Nainesh M. Gandhi 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 193 Souvenir Developers (I) Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 194 Sheetal Devang Shah versus Presiding Officer 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 195 Harish Chandra Damodar vs UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 196 Balusha Santosh Bhasal and Anr. Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 197Shamrao Piraji Kadam v Prakash Shivaji Chavan and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 198 Orders/Judgments 1. Assessee Deprived Of Refund Due To Wrongful Withholding Of Amount By Income Tax Dept.:Bombay High Court Imposes 6% Interest Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Versus UOI Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 170 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice S.G. Mehare and Justice R.D. Dhanuka has allowed 6% interest to the assessee on wrongful withholding of the amount by the income tax department. Based on orders passed by the Supreme Court and Delhi high Court the bench said that "the assessee who is deprived of refund of their amount in view of wrongful withholding of their amount by the authority cannot be refused to compensate for such wrongful deprivation of their amount lying with the authority for no fault of the assessees." 2. Bombay High Court Decides Man's Appeal A Year After He Completed Punishment Of 10 Yrs Imprisonment, Reduces Sentence Case Title: Mohd. Luthpura Vajidali Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 171 The Bombay High Court decided a labour contractor's appeal, a year after the 30-year-old man had served his complete 10-year-sentence and was released from the central Prison. The bench of Justice PD Naik upheld Luthpura Shaikh's conviction only for seven years regarding possession of counterfeit currency (489-B of IPC) and acquitted him for graver charges attracting the 10-year-sentence. 3. 'No Legally Enforceable Right Infringed': Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea To Prohibit Newspapers From Publishing Pictures Of Gods & Goddesses Case Title - Adv. Firoz Babulal Sayyed Vs. The Union of India & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 172 The Bombay High Court dismissed an Advocate's PIL seeking directions for a policy restricting publication of photographs of gods and goddesses in the newspapers as they ultimately land up in the garbage bin. The bench held that the matter was entirely within the domain of the legislature, or to a limited extent, within the domain of the executive. The bench restated, that a writ petition would lie only if a legally protected right, which is judicially enforceable, is abrogated or infringed or is threatened to be abrogated or infringed by arbitrary executive action. 4. Breaking: Bombay High Court Rejects Review Plea Seeking Default Bail To Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves & Arun Ferreira Case Title: Dr P Varavara Rao & othrs vs State of Maharashtra and othrs Citation: 2022...

Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: May, 2022 [Citation 170-198]

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags