Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 13 To February 19, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 91 - 109]Shashikala Kishan Yewale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 91MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 92Shailendra Kumar Dubey v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 93Pushkaraj Shekharrao Indurkar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 84Ekta Welfare Society v. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 93Anand s/o Shivaji Ghodale v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 96Quess Corp v. Netcore Cloud Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 97Late Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 98Konark Life Spaces v. Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 99Abbott India Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 100Ashwini Sanjay Babar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 101Sajjan s/o Hirchand Gusinge v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 102CLSA India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 103Mohammed Mussaviruddin Mohammed Naziruddin v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 104BST Textile Mills Pvt Ltd v. The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 105Dr. Sunil s/o Nilkanth Washimkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 106Arvind S/o Sarjerao Devkar v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 107Rohit Enterprises v. Commissioner State GST Bhavan 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 108Deluxe Caterers Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Narayani Associates 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 109Reports/Judgments“Can’t Be Party To A Widow Being Thrown Out Of Her House After 50 Years, Where Is The Justice?”: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Shashikala Kishan Yewale v. State of Maharashtra & AnrCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 91Observing that it couldn’t be party to a widow being possibly evicted from her lawfully occupied home of 50 years, the Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority (MHADA) to add her name as a tenant/occupant of the 160 square feet premises in Mumbai.The division bench of Justices GS Patel and SG Dige noted that on one hand MHADA had a policy to temporarily accommodate even trespassers but in the present case they were insisting on reserving their rights to evict an old woman, lawfully living in the premises.Vehicular Toll Is Tax And Not Mere Contractual Debt Between Collection Company And Civic Body: Bombay High CourtCase Title: MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. v. South Delhi Municipal CorporationCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 92Observing that vehicular toll is a tax and not merely contractual debt between the collection company and the civic body, the Bombay High Court dismissed plea by Mumbai based MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. (MEPIDL) challenging recovery proceedings for its failure to pay toll collected by it to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).A division bench of Justices G. S. Patel and S.G. Dige further held that once Tehsildar has directed a bank to freeze the accounts of a defaulter against whom recovery certificate is issued, the bank has no power to invite objections from the defaulter.Match-Maker Cannot Be Charged With Cheating If Groom Allegedly Illtreated Bride: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Shailendra Kumar Dubey v. XYZCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 93A match-maker, who praised the groom before the prospective bride’s family, cannot be charged with cheating merely because the man allegedly treated the woman badly and is now accused of domestic violence, the Bombay High court observed.A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan quashed the FIR against the matchmaker, a senior banker, booked along with the husband and his family.Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Uniform Rules & Safety Measures For Ganpati Utsav CelebrationsCase Title: Pushkaraj Shekharrao Indurkar v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 84The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking uniform rules and safety measures for public gathering for the celebrations of Ganpati Utsav.A division bench of acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that the petition has not suggested any safety measures."In the Writ Petition, not a single instance is narrated, as to how the safety measures are not taken. Further the Petitioner also not suggested any such measures."Scale Of Human Displacement Beyond Imagination, Labelling People As ‘Encroachers’ & Deploying Bulldozers No Solution: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Ekta Welfare Society v. State of Maharashtra & OrsCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 93Merely labelling people as “encroachers” and “deploying bulldozers” is not the solution as the scale of human displacement is beyond imagination, the Bombay High Court said in an interim order, while calling for a more considerate approach to address the issue of alleged encroachments.The division bench of Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale disapproved of the manner used to demolish around 101 “illegal” structures on Western...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 13 To February 19, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags