Bombay High Court Weekly Round Up : 24 July To 30 July, 2022

Nominal Index The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 4 Versus Kumar Builders Consortium 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 265 Jaising Nivrutti Sonawane v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 266 Om v. Sate of Maharashtra and Anr. & Shital v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 267 Meenanath Fatarpekar v. MicroStrategy India Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 268 Siddharth Banthia v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 269 Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent/ Original Petitioner) v. OSV Crest Mercury 1 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 270 Yeshwanth Shenoy V/s. The Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 271 Vikram Dhondiram Raskar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 272 Nikita d/o Narayan Gore vs. The Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 273 XYZ v Union of India and ors - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 274 Judgments/Reports AO To Workout Pro Rata Deduction In Regard To Eligible Residential Units: Bombay High Court Case Title: The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 4 Versus Kumar Builders Consortium Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 265 The Bombay High Court has upheld the order of the ITAT directing the Assessing Officer to work out the pro rata deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Abhay Ahuja observed that Section 80IB(10) nowhere even remotely aims to deny the benefit of deduction in regard to a residential unit, which otherwise confirms the requirement of size at the cost of an ineligible residential unit with a built-up area of more than 1500 sq. ft. Approach Of Believing That No Action Can Be Taken Against Wrongdoings Of Govt Servants Needs To Stop: Bombay High Court Case Title – Jaising Nivrutti Sonawane v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 266 The Bombay High Court has dismissed a government bus conductor's appeal against dismissal of service stating, "The approach in this country of believing that when one works for government no action can ever be taken no matter how persistently one is found to be doing wrong is an approach that needs to now stop as fast as possible." The Bench in the current case said that proportionality of punishment must be considered in any case but that doesn't mean that every single infraction be treated leniently. Tribal's Son Appointed On Compassionate Grounds Must Produce Caste Certificate If Not Submitted By Parent: Bombay High Court Full Bench Case Title – Om v. Sate of Maharashtra and Anr. & Shital v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 267 A full bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that a compassionate appointee for a reserved category post wouldn't be exempted from submitting a caste validity certificate especially if the original holder of the post didn't produce a caste certificate during his lifetime. Section 29A Of The A&C Act Applies Prospectively Does Not Apply To Arbitration That Commenced Before The 2015 Amendment: Bombay High Court Case Title: Meenanath Fatarpekar v. MicroStrategy India Pvt. Ltd. Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 53 of 2021 Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 268 The Bombay High Court held that Section 29A of the A&C Act that provides a timeline of 12 months for passing an arbitral award would not apply to arbitration that commenced before the 2015 Amendment to the Act. Provisions of Section 29A of the A&C Act, which was incorporated into the principal act via the 2015 Amendment Act, would not apply to an arbitration proceeding commenced on 3rd Feb 2015 as in terms of Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment Act, the amendment came in to force on 23rd October 2015, the court held. Consent Obtained For Sex In Second Marriage Without Disclosing First Marriage Prima Facie Constitutes Rape: Bombay High Court Case Title: Siddharth Banthia v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 269 Consent obtained for sex in a second marriage without disclosing first marriage would prime facie constitute rape, the Bombay High Court held refusing to discharge the 'husband' in a rape case filed by a Marathi actress. Justice N.J. Jamadar held that prima facie, clause four of section 375 of the Penal Code under which the offence of rape is defined seems to be attracted in the present case. "Where there is knowledge on the part of the man about he being not the husband of the prosecutrix and the consent is on account of such mistaken belief that he is her husband and a belief on the part of the prosecutrix that she is the wife of the man." Pendency Of Arbitration Is Not A Bar To The Maintainability Of An Admiralty Suit For Arrest Of The Ship: Bombay High Court Case Title: Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent/ Original Petitioner) v. OSV Crest Mercury 1 (Applicant/ Defendant) in Commercial...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round Up : 24 July To 30 July, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags