Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: 8 August To 14 August, 2022

Sukoon Construction Pvt. Ltd v. The Collector of Stamp & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 280

Smarte Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 281

Vasant v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 282

Kirit Somaiya v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 283

Novafor Samuel Inoamaobi Versus The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 284

B. Chopda Construction Private Limited V/s. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 285

Obedullah Abdul Rashid Radiowala v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 286

Novafor Samuel Inoamaobi Versus The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 287

Mohammad Rafique Mohammad Saleem Siddiqui v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 288

Vanashakti & Anr Versus Revenue & Forest Dept, State of Maharashtra & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 289

Reports/Judgments

Maharashtra Stamp Act | Collector Has No Power To Revise Stamp Duty Once It's Already Been Levied & Paid: Bombay High Court

Case Title – Sukoon Construction Pvt. Ltd v. The Collector of Stamp & Anr.

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 280

Bombay High Court held that the Collector of Stamps under the Maharashtra Stamp Act cannot revise stamp duty once it has been levied and paid.

Justice Bharati Dangre while referring to the observed that in Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, once the Collector certifies an endorsement on the document depicting payment of full duty, it becomes effective and final and it is not open for him to reopen the adjudication.

The court held that the Collector had become "functus officio" after endorsing the deed and had no further powers to revise the duty. The power of revising the duty is, at the most, available with the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 53-A of the Stamp Act.

Exporter Not Required To Hold IEC Number To Avail Benefits Under 'Service Exports From India' Scheme: Bombay High Court

Case Title – Smarte Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 281

The Bombay High Court ruled that the requirement of holding an Import Export Code (IEC) number at the time of rendering services in order to avail the benefits under the Services Export from India Scheme (SEIS), as imposed by the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 (FTP), is against the intent and purpose of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act).

Court held that the eligibility criteria, as provided in Clause 3.08 (f) of the FTP, for availing the benefits under SEIS has imposed an additional restriction of having an IEC number at the time of rendering the services, which is not the intent or purport of the FTDR Act.

Justices S.V. Gangapurwala and Vinay Joshi held that the said condition cannot be termed as mandatory in nature for availing the benefits under the SEIS since it is against the principal legislation, i.e., the FTDR Act.

[Dowry Death] Dying Declaration Produced By Accused In-Laws Cannot Be Considered Without Authentication: Bombay High Court

Case Title – Vasant v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 282

The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court held that before accepting a dying declaration brought on record, the Courts must scrutinize it closely as there is no opportunity to test its veracity by cross examination.

Justice Bharat Deshpande held that a dying declaration which has been recorded by the competent Magistrate, in proper manner, i.e., in the form of questions and answers and as far as possible practical in words of maker of declaration stands on much higher even than the dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all infirmities of human memory and human character.

INS Vikrant Cheating Case: Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To BJP Leader Kirit Somaiya, Son Niel After Prosecution Says 'No Proof'

Case Title – Kirit Somaiya v. State of Maharashtra and Niel Kirit Somaiya v. State of Maharashtra

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 283

The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to BJP leader Kirit Somaiya and his son, Neil, in a case alleging swindling of funds that were collected to save warship INS Vikrant.

Justice Bharati Dangre made absolute an earlier interim order granting them relief after the Mumbai Police represented by Senior Counsel Shirish Gupte submitted that no proof was found to substantiate allegations alleging swindling of nearly Rs. 57 crores.

Two Years After Nigerian's Arrest In NDPS Case Chemical Analyzer Admits "Mistake" In FSL Report, Says No Illicit Drugs Recovered

Case Title: Novafor Samuel Inoamaobi Versus The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 284

Even though state officials are considered supreme and in charge of law and order they are expected to act responsibly, the Bombay High Court said while granting bail to a Nigerian national, who spent almost two years in prison because of a chemical analyser's mistake.

The chemical analyser wrote to the Anti-Terrorism Squad earlier this year and clarified that no contraband was found in the items seized from the Nigerian in the year 2020, only pain killers and caffeine. He was from the forensic sciences laboratory in Kalina.

Assessee Eligible For SVLDRS Declaration Since The Demand Of Duty Quantified On Or Before June 30, 2019: Bombay High Court

Case Title: B. Chopda Construction Private Limited V/s. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 285

The Bombay High Court has allowed the declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on the grounds that although there was an audit, the amount of duty quantified has also been quantified before 30th June 2019.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Milind N. Jadhav has observed that the rejection of the petitioner's declaration on the ground that the final audit report was issued after June 30, 2019 was incorrect.

Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Financing Attempt To Murder Mahesh Bhatt

Case Title – Obedullah Abdul Rashid Radiowala v. The State of Maharashtra

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 286

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Obed Radiowala, a close aide of gangster Ravi Pujari and accused of arranging for finances for the attempt to murder producer Mahesh Bhatt in 2014.

Justice Bharati Dangre stated, "Prima facie in absence of concrete material leading to the guilt of the Applicant, merely on the allegation that sum of Rs.6 Lakh to Rs.7 Lakh was transferred to his brother's account, when there is already acquittal under the provisions of MCOC Act, further incarceration of the Applicant is unnecessary. He shall, however, face the trial."

Justice Dangre clarified that the trial court shouldn't be influenced by her observations and Radiowala should be tried for the alleged offence. She directed his release on furnishing a PR bond to the extent of Rs.50,000 with one or two sureties of the like amount.

Bombay High Court Directs Grant Of Rs 2 Lakh Compensation To Nigerian National Jailed For 2 Years Due To Mistake In FSL Report

Case Title: Novafor Samuel Inoamaobi Versus The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 287

Observing that liberty under Article 21 is also available to foreign citizens, the Bombay High Court today ordered compensation and granted bail to Nigerian national incarcerated in 2020 on the basis of an erroneous forensic report. Justice Bharti Dangre said that the applicant cannot be kept in detention merely because he is a foreign citizen and has criminal antecedents if there was no recovery of drugs under the NDPS Act.

The court suo motu directed the Maharashtra Government to pay the accused Rs. 2 lakh compensation within six weeks for wrongful incarceration after the state submitted that it doesn't have a policy for compensation.

Malwani Building Collapse: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Owner Who Lost 9 Family Members

Case Title – Mohammad Rafique Mohammad Saleem Siddiqui v. The State of Maharashtra

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 288

The Bombay High Court granted bail to the owner of a building in Mumbai's Malwani area which collapsed last year, killing 9 of his own family members.

Justice Bharati Dangre held, "The applicant, in any case, cannot be attributed a rash and negligent act, resulting into the collapse of the building where he himself has lost his family members. He may face the consequences of the trial when the prosecution will establish and connect him to the grave and negligent act. However, at present, in the wake of the nature of the offence and the evidence collected by the prosecution and compiled in the charge-sheet, the applicant cannot be continued in detention and deserve his release on bail."

High Time Govt Uses E-filing System: Bombay High Court Declines To Take Hard Copies In 'Environmental PIL'

Case Title – Vanashakti & Anr Versus Revenue & Forest Dept, State of Maharashtra & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 289

The Bombay High Court, observing that it was high time the State Government and its agencies started using the E-filing system invariably, refused to take hard copies of an affidavit in a case related to the environment.

Justices Gautam Patel and Gauri Godse, observed, "It is incongruous that in an environmental PIL that seeks to protect wetlands, and filed by a social action group that seeks to protect forests, more and more paper is being used like this."

The bench directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Registrar (Original Side), Registrar General and the Prothonotary & Senior Master to consider issuing appropriate directions or obtaining appropriate directions from the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court on the point of e-filing of documents.