Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 19 To December 25, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 501-517] 1. Bharatiya Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Krishna Harinarayan Bajaj, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 501 2. Delfina Gonsalves v. Felix Gonsalves 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 502 3. C.H. Sharma and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 503 4. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Vardhan Builders: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 504 5. M/s. Pinak Bharat and Company v. Anil Ramrao Naik 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 505 6. Suraj s/o Arvind Thakare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 506 7. Sanjaykumar Shivmangal Bharati v. State of Maharashtra & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 507 8. Sanjeev Suryakant Palande v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 508 9. Deena Pramod Baldota v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 509 10. Anushka Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 510 11. Manzar Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Moving Frames & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 511 12. M/s Bhatewara Associates v. Union Of India: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 512 13. Rohan Tukaram @ Appasaheb Kale v. Somnath Haribhau Koli and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 513 14. Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 514 15. Hyprecision Hydraulik v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 515 16. Vikram S/o Madhukar Labhe and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 516 17. Jyoti w/o Mahesh Agrawal v. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Central Railway 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 517 Reports/Judgments 1. Bombay High Court Allows Flat Owner To Recover Over 46 Lakhs Terrace Repair Expenses From Housing Society Case Title: Bharatiya Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Krishna Harinarayan Bajaj, Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 501 The Bombay High Court allowed a flat owner to recover over Rs. 46 lakhs from a cooperative housing society as expenses for repairing the building terrace which the society had neglected since 1992. Justice Sandeep K. Shinde also imposed cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on the society payable to the flat owner who suffered due to leakage from the overhead terrace despite multiple complaints to the society. 2. [Portuguese CPC] Bombay HC Directs Cancellation Of Goan Couple's Marriage Registration Based On Foreign Decree Case Title: Delfina Gonsalves v. Felix Gonsalves Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 502 The Bombay High Court at Goa relied on a divorce decree passed by the Family Court sitting at the Court and Tribunal Service Centre in England to cancel the marriage registration of a Goan couple. Justice G. S. Kulkarni noted that the grounds on which the decree was passed in England are also grounds recognised and acceptable under the laws in India, including under the PCCP. The court allowed their petition under Article 1101 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, 1939 and directed cancellation of their names in the marriage registration book of 2004. 3. 'Need To Give Financial Autonomy To Govt Hospitals': Bombay High Court On Non- Availability of Essential Medicines & Equipment Case title: C.H. Sharma and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 503 Bombay High Court at Nagpur observed that several Departments of the Government enjoy reasonable financial autonomy and are allowed to utilise their financial powers fully by purchasing the essentials that they require for their official needs but the same kind of financial autonomy is not reserved for the Government Hospitals and the Government Hospitals are compelled to make purchases of their medicines and medical equipment through Huffkin Institute. The court urged the Maharashtra Government to decentralize purchase of medicines and medical equipment by Government Hospitals giving them reasonable financial autonomy to serve the interest of patients. 4. Bombay High Court Allows Deduction On Issuance Of Completion Certificate Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Vardhan Builders Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 504 The Bombay High Court allowed the income tax deduction under Section 80-IB on the grounds that a completion certificate was issued by the competent authority. The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki S.A. Menezes, while upholding the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), observed that there was no allegation by the survey team during the earlier survey conducted in the year 2006 that the assessee was not raising the construction as per the approved plan. It was also held that if there was any modification to a completed residential unit for which a completion certificate had been issued by the competent authority, the assessee could not be held responsible. 5. [NI Act] Complainant Putting Date On Cheque Without Drawer's Consent...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 19 To December 25, 2022

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags