Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 17 To July 23, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX Rahim Manji Kaba vs Moosabhai Gagji Khetani 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 256 Satvinder Jeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 257 Anand Prabhakar Joshi vs Bank of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 258 Santacruz Gymkhana vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 259 Vodafone Idea Limited vs UOI and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 260 Derivados Consulting Pvt. Ltd. vs Pramara Promotions Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 261 Jagannath Bhagnath Bedke vs Haribhau Jagannath Bedke 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 262 Sterlite Industries (lndia ) Limited and ors vs Special Director of Enforcement and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 263 International Society for Krishna Consciousness Bangalore v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 264ROUND-UP Bar Under Section 41(1) Of The Presidency Small Causes Courts Act Is Not Attracted When The Tenant-Landlord Relationship Is Non-Existing: Bombay High Court Case Title: Rahim Manji Kaba v. Moosabhai Gagji Khetani Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 256 The Bombay High Court held that bar under Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882[i] is not attracted to a dispute regarding declaration of tenancy rights under a partnership deed when the licensor-licensee or landlord/tenant relationship is non-existent The Bench held that the bar under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act only applies where the parties have a landlord-tenant or licensor-licensee relationship between themselves. S.138 NI Act | Non-Executive Directors Not Liable For Company's Actions/ Omissions Unless Involved In Day-To-Day Affairs: Bombay High Court Case Title: Satvinder Jeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 257 The Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings against independent non-executive directors of Tecpro Systems Ltd observing they were not responsible for day-to-day functioning of the company. The court was dealing with an application requesting quashing of criminal proceedings before the trial court in a cheque bounce case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. "Non-executive director not being a promoter of or key managerial persons shall be held liable, only in respect of such acts of omission or commission by a company which had occurred with his knowledge, attributable through Board processes, and with his consent or connivance or where he had not acted diligently", the court stated. 11 Yrs Of Frivolous Litigation: Bombay High Court Reprimands Petitioner In Person, Imposes 1 Lakh Cost Case Title : Anand Prabhakar Joshi v. Bank of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 258 The Bombay High Court reprimanded a Pune resident, seeking second review of the court's earlier decision, stating that the petition was without merit and constituted abuse of process and law. A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on the petitioner. The court said that advanced age of the petitioner cannot be a reason to take a sympathetic view as he is "fully aware that he has been fighting a lost legal battle which has no merit at all". "Such conduct is highly deprecated as the petitioner appears to be incorrigible", the court stated. Entertainment Duty Not Applicable On Billiards Tables At Members-Only Club: Bombay High Court Case Title: Santacruz Gymkhana Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. with connected matters Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 259 Entertainment duty is not applicable on billiards tables at a members-only club, the Bombay High Court held while quashing demand notices issued to eight elite clubs in Mumbai under the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act 1923. Unlike a commercial pool parlor meant for public entertainment at a fee, the clubs neither allow outsiders nor benefit commercially from the activity. Therefore, providing billiards tables cannot be treated as "entertainment" and consequently cannot be taxable under the Act, the court held. [IGST] Roaming Services And International Long Distance Services Provided By Vodafone Idea To Foreign Telecom Operators Is An Export Of Service: Bombay High Court Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited versus UOI and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 260 The Bombay High Court has ruled that the international Inbound Roaming Services (IIR) and the International Long Distance (ILD) Services provided by Vodafone Idea to Foreign Telecom Operators (FTOs) is an export of services, and thus, Vodafone Idea is eligible for the refund of the IGST paid by it. Noting that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the IGST Act were applicable, the Court held that the place of supply of service was the location of the recipient of the service, i.e., the location of the FTO, which was outside India. An Enabling Clause Does Not Constitute A Binding Arbitration Agreement Between The Parties: Bombay High...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 17 To July 23, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags