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

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 Admiralty Suit (L) No. 13462 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 270

The Bombay High Court has held that the pendency of an arbitration proceeding between the parties on the same cause of action is not a bar to the institution of an admiralty suit.

The Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar held that merely because the vessel owner has instituted an arbitration against the charterer, the same would not preclude the charterer from filing an admiralty suit for recovery of its dues and arrest of the vessel in an action in rem.

High Court Asks Mumbai Collector To Take Steps For Demolition Of 48 "Obstructions" Around Mumbai Airport

Case Title - Yeshwanth Shenoy V/s. The Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 271

The Bombay High Court held the Collector (Mumbai Suburban) responsible for removing obstacles, and directed her to take immediate steps to demolish 48 obstacles around the Mumbai airport.

The obstacles include certain floors of high-rises and the demolition would be undertaken under Rule 8 of the Aircraft Rules 1994.

Candidate Cannot Complain Of Alleged Violations In Selection Process After Appearing For Interview: Bombay High Court

Case Title - Vikram Dhondiram Raskar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 272

The Bombay High Court said that candidates aggrieved by violations of recruitment guidelines should raise their objections before appearing for the interview.

"It is well settled that a candidate who is called for the interview and takes part in the interview, cannot turn around and pick holes and contend that the selection process was conducted in violation of the guidelines", a division bench of Justices R. D. Dhanuka and M. G. Sewlikar observed.

It thus dismissed a writ petition challenging the legality of recruitment process of a co-operative bank and the appointments thereof.

Bombay High Court Concerned Over Unclean Toilets In State-Run Schools, Asks DLSAs To Conduct Surprise Inspection

Case Title - Nikita d/o Narayan Gore vs. The Union of India

Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 273

Government authorities or the concerned government-aided school's failure to provide clean washrooms for young girl students would amount to denial of a basic human right to live with dignity apart from compromising on the health of those children, the Bombay High Court held.

The court directed District Legal Services Authorities within its jurisdiction to conduct surprise visits in at least 15 urban and rural government – aided schools and report about the condition of washrooms.

Bombay High Court Directs National Board To Decide Couple's Plea To Import Cryo-Preserved Embryos From US Lab

Case Title – XYZ v Union of India and ors

Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 274

The Bombay High Court asked the National Board – constituted under the 2021 new Assisted Reproductive Technology Act (ART) and Surrogacy Act to decide a couple's plea to import their cryo-preserved embryo to India, stored in a laboratory in the United States since 2016.

The division bench asked the couple in their 40s to appear before the board on August 1, 2022 and directed the board to decide the matter on its own merits.

After several failed attempts at pregnancy, Intro Vitro Fertilization (IVF) abroad and in India, a spontaneous abortion, the wife's epilepsy and a three-week coma, the couple said they were not fit to conceive. Their five preserved embryos were their only hope of a child through surrogacy, they said.

The couple approached the court last year before the Acts came into force. Back then there was a 2015 notification by which the Director-General of Foreign Trade moved the import of human embryos from the 'restricted category to the 'prohibited' category except for scientific research.