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

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 Of Proceedings Will Be 'Abuse Of Process': Bombay High Court Quashes Cheating FIR Against Indiabulls

Case Title: Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. , with connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 175

The Bombay High Court recently allowed a plea by Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (IHFL) seeking to quash a FIR lodged by a shareholder against the company and its promoters, alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust. The Court also quashed a Magistrate Court's order, directing registration of FIR.

The bench was of the view that the Magistrate was influenced by the length of the complaint, and arrived at a conclusion that there was a diversion of huge monetary funds to the tune of Rs. 300 crores and the money was transferred to other country i.e., Mauritius.

"Admittedly, it was only allegations in the complaint and except bare words of the complainant there was no other material before the Magistrate to form such an opinion as such, there is merit in the submissions of learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rohatgi that the Magistrate without applying his mind passed mechanical order under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure."

Section167(2) CrPC- Investigating Agency Can't Curtail Accused' Right To Default Bail By Invoking Graver Charges: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Alnesh Akil Somji Versus The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 176

The Bombay High Court has clarified that an investigating agency cannot thwart the right to default bail of an accused by merely invoking graver charges.

It opined that the Court, while considering the plea for default bail, would be required to look into the generality of the allegations made and the material collected. In a given case where ex-facie the provision is not attracted, the Court may not be bound by the same.

NOC Not Mandatory For Registering Sale Of Fragmented Land: Bombay High Court Strikes Down Provision In Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961

Case Title: Govind Ramling Solpure and Ors. versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 177

The Bombay High Court has read down Rule 44(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961 which imposed additional conditions on the person seeking registration of sale deeds for lands of certain size and therefore produce a No Objection Certificate for fragmentation of the land from the competent authority.

A circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps (IGRCS), on July 12, 2021 based on Rule 44(1)(i), mandated enclosure of permission from the concerned authority in view of section 8B of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holding (Amendment) Act, 2015. The circular barred Sub-Registrar's from registering any sale/transfer deed, if the no objection from the competent authority was not produced.

"SureIt Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Stops Work Of Powai Cycling &Jogging Track, Directs Restoration

Case Title -Omkar Mahadeo Supekar vs MCGM

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 178

In a huge setback for the civic body, the Bombay High Court held that the ongoing work for the cycle and jogging track around the Powai-lake is illegal and directed restoration of the reclaimed land.

The court held that the cycle track was a breach of Development Control Regulation 2034, [34 3.3 clause 7] mandating no construction for 100 meters from the periphery of the lake.

Bombay High Court Directs Assessee To Pay Rs.25,000 to Assessing Officer As The Stay Order Was Not Proactively Communicated

Case Title: Armstrong Pure Water Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India and others

Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 179

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice N.R.Borkar and Justice K.R.Shriram held that the a litigant should have been proactive and promptly communicated the stay granted by the Court to the Assessing Officer.

Not Offence U/S 505(2) IPC: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist For Reporting On Differences Between Police Departments In Solapur

Case Title: Amol Kashinath Vyavhare Versus Purnima Chaugule Shrirangi And Others

Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 180

Publishing news reports about friction between police officers from different departments doesn't amount to creating ill-will among classes as defined under section 505(2) of the IPC, the Bombay High Court has held.

The bench noted that ingredients of 505(2) of the IPC are that the publication of the article must be with the "intent to create or promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever."