Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 3 To October 9, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 370 – 377] 1. Santosh s/o Ananada Mane @ Chhotu v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 370 2. Abhimanyu Laxman Kumbhar v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 371 3. Oasis Realty v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 372 4. Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 373 5. Pundlik Yevatkar v. Sau. Ujwala @ Shubhangi Pundlik Yevatkar 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 374 6. Binoy Kodiyeri v. State of Mahaharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 375 7. Sheetal Dilip Jain v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 376 8. Ruju Thakker v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 377Reports/Judgments 1. Custodial Interrogation Is Not Imperative Merely Because Offence Is Murder: Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Accused Case Title: Santosh s/o Ananada Mane @ Chhotu v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 370 The custodial interrogation of an accused is not mandatory merely because he's been booked in a murder case, the Bombay High Court held while granting anticipatory bail to a man booked under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A bench of Justice Bharati Dangre observed that the man's legitimate apprehension of arrested was enough to seek pre-arrest bail adding the offence allegedly occurred three years ago wherein he allegedly had a limited role. 2. Employer Cannot Deny Back Wages Citing 'No Work No Pay' After Refusing Reinstatement Due To Pendency Of Appeal Against Acquittal: Bombay HC Case Title: Abhimanyu Laxman Kumbhar v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 371 The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court recently held that an employer cannot deny wages citing pendency of a criminal appeal against an employee's acquittal on the principle of 'no work no pay'. A division bench of Justices Mangesh S. Patil And Sandeep V. Marne granted back wages and continuity of service to the petitioner in a writ petition challenging Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited's decision to not pay back wages despite him being acquitted by the trial court. "In our opinion, mere pendency of the appeal against acquittal would not entitle the respondents to continue the penalty of removal from service," the court said. 3. Bombay High Court Allows Taxpayer To Utilise Amount Available In Electronic Credit Ledger to Pay Pre-Deposit Case title: Oasis Realty v. Union of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 372 The Bombay High Court has held that the taxpayer may utilise the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger to pay the 10% of tax in dispute as prescribed under Sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the CGST Act. The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor court noted that any payment towards output tax, whether self-assessed in the return or payable as a consequence of any proceeding instituted under the MGST Act, can be made by utilisation of the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Hence, a party can pay 10% of the disputed tax either using the amount available in the electronic cash ledger or the amount available in the electronic credit ledger. 4. Anil Deshmukh May Not Get Convicted, Sachin Waze's Statements Contradictory : Bombay High Court In Bail Order Case title: Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 373 The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted bail to former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh, in a money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate stating that Deshmukh, in all probability, "may not be ultimately convicted". The bench of Justice N. J. Jamadar refused to rely solely on Sachin Waze's statements considering his contradictory stand before the Justice Chandiwal Commission wherein he denied all the allegations against Deshmukh. The court also cited Waze's chequered past to prima facie discredit him as a witness. 5. Well Qualified Wife Expressing Desire To Pursue Job Not Cruelty; Reproductive Choice Insegregable To Woman's Personal Liberty: Bombay High Court Case Title: Pundlik Yevatkar v. Sau. Ujwala @ Shubhangi Pundlik Yevatkar Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 374 The Bombay High Court held that a wife expressing a desire to work does not amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court further said that the right of a woman to have reproductive choice is an insegregable part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi-Phalke upheld family court's refusal to grant divorce to the husband on the ground that cruelty is not proven. The court said that cruelty has to be distinguished from the ordinary...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 3 To October 9, 2022

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags