Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 20 To February 26, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 110 - 119]Mahipati Antu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 110Sunil Rama Kuchkoravi v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 111Ms. M. V. Nordlake GmbH v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 112Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 113ACC Ltd. v. Dr. Rustum Samboyce And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 114Naresh Goyal v. Directoratate Of Enforcement And Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 115M/s. Perfect Auto v. Santosh Narsingdasji Agrawal 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 116Natraj Sanskrutik Kala Kendra through its proprietor Vishal Nandkishor Gangawane v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 117Rochem India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CBIC 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 118Kalpesh Shantikumar Mehta & Ors. vs. NKGSB Co-op. Bank Ltd & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 119Reports/JudgmentsNALSA's Scheme For Undertrial Prisoners Cannot Take Away Court's Discretion To Grant Or Refuse Bail: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Mahipati Antu Jadhav v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 110The Bombay High Court held that the NALSA’s scheme for release of undertrial prisoners is meant to bring the attention of the stakeholders i.e., courts, to the undertrial persons languishing in jail, but it cannot override the court’s discretion to grant or refuse bail to such prisoners on merits.Justice S. M. Modak, while denying bail to a murder accused, observed that nothing can take away the discretion of the court in grant of bail.Convicted Of Murdering His Mother, Bombay High Court Allows Death Row Convict To Attend His Daughter’s Marriage (livelaw.in)Case Title: Sunil Rama Kuchkoravi v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 111The Bombay High Court allowed a death row convict, who murdered his mother and cut her body parts to eat them, to attend his daughter’s marriage. An Escort Party in civil dress will remain present at the venues.A division bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice P. D. Naik observed that his presence is necessary for performing religious ceremonies.INS Vindhyagiri - MV Nordlake Collision | Liability Can Be Limited At Interim Stage Before Completion Of Trial: Bombay High Court (livelaw.in)Case Title: Ms. M. V. Nordlake GmbH v. Union of IndiaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 112Ruling that the liability of a vessel owner for an accident can be limited at the interim stage before the completion of the trial, the Bombay High Court limited the liability of German company M.V. Nordlake Gmbh for the 2011 MV Nordlake – INS Vindhyagiri collision in Mumbai.“Once the suit is instituted, it is not imperative that the order to limit liability can only be after a full fledged trial. The Court is not precluded from passing a decree at an intermediate stage without the trial running its full course…there is no embargo either under the provisions of the Code (CPC) or Rules 1980 (Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules) to entertain the application for limitation of the liability”, Justice N. J. Jamadar held while deciding a Notice of Motion for limitation of liability.Availability Of Interest-Free Surplus Fund To Make Investment: Bombay High Court Deletes Addition On Interest Expenditure (livelaw.in)Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 113The Bombay High Court upheld the CIT’s order in deleting the addition made on account of interest expenditure as the assessee, Godrej & Boyce, had sufficient interest-free surplus funds to make the investment.The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata observed that the AO has neither examined the claim in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the exempt income of the assessee nor recorded any satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the assessee’s claim with reference to the books of account. The disallowance made by applying Rule 8D is not only against the statutory mandate but also contrary to the legal principles laid down.Prima Facie No Negligence: Bombay High Court grants interim relief To ACC Cement Case Over Dematerializing NRI’s Shares In Someone Else’s NameCase Title: ACC Ltd. v. Dr. Rustum Samboyce And Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 114The Bombay High Court held that none of the factors necessary to record finding of negligence have been considered by the trial court in a decision that found ACC Cement negligent for dematerializing (digitizing) an NRI’s shares in someone else’s name.Justice Amit Borkar observed that prima facie the NRI’s claim was not based on a right created under a statute or under contract. On March 27, 2017 a civil court held ACC negligent for dematerializing the NRI - Dr. Rustom Sam Boyce’s - shares in someone else’s name despite being put to notice that the shares were stolen.It allowed the NRI to retrieve 3912 and 6250 shares of ACC along with accrual rights, bonus, dividends, from November 1, 2005. ACC approached the HC against this decree.Bombay High Court Quashes ED Investigation Against Jet ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 20 To February 26, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags