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

Nominal Index 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) 284B. Chopda Construction Private Limited V/s. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 285Obedullah Abdul Rashid Radiowala v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 286Novafor Samuel Inoamaobi Versus The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 287 Mohammad Rafique Mohammad Saleem Siddiqui v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 288Vanashakti & 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 MaharashtraCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 284Even 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...

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags