Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 2 To May 8, 2022

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 Orders/Judgments 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." BombayHigh 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. '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. 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 LiveLaw (Bom) 173 The Bombay High Court held re-hearing of the matter on a point which was not at all urged, is impermissible in law, under the guise of review. Nor can review be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or canvassing a totally new submission. The bench thus rejected a review application filed by three accused in the Bhima Koregaon – Elgar Parishad Case seeking default bail alleging factual corrections in the order refusing them default bail. The fact that the accused had also filed for default was not argued before the court. "We, therefore, find it difficult to accede to the submission on behalf of the applicants that a factual error had crept in… It is trite that disguised as a review, it is not permissible even for an erroneous decision to be, "re-heard and corrected". 2008 Indian Mujahideen Case: 14 Yrs On, Bombay High Court Orders Re-Adjudication Of Accused' Plea To Drop MCOCA Charges Case Title: Mubeen Kadar Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra, and connected matters Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 174 The Bombay High Court has directed the Special Court to re-adjudicate the plea of an accused seeking to drop charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against 23 men arrested over 13-14 years ago in the Indian Mujahideen Case. A division bench observed that an application seeking to drop certain charges was pending before the trial court when charges were framed in 2013 and the court couldn't have framed charges before disposing of the application. Continuity...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 2 To May 8, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags