Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 14 To February 20, 2022

CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 37 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 45NOMINAL INDEX Dhanlaxmi Chandu Devrukar vs The Town Planning 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 37 Tata Sons Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 38 Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and Anr. v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 39 Aircon Beibars FZE v. Heligo Charters Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 40 Ambhika Magasvargiya Mastyavaivasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Jununwadi vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 41 Stawan Mahila Bachat Gat vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 42 The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of CGST & CX, Div-IX, Mumbai Central GST Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 43 Somnath Laxman Giri & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 45ROUND UP 1. Notaries Operating From Cars & Taxis Lowering Dignity Of Legal Profession: Bombay HC Expresses Anguish Case Title: Dhanlaxmi Chandu Devrukar vs The Town Planning Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 37 In a significant order, the Bombay High Court took strong exception to several instances of malpractices by Notaries, ordered them to pay costs while also directing the Department of Legal Affairs to consider certain recommendations to the draft Notaries (Amendment) Bill, 2021. The bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav, which was hearing a clutch of petitions, further observed how Notaries were operating from private cars and taxis outside the Bombay High Court and said "legal profession cannot be allowed to function from the streets." 2. "Condition Of Income Having Escaped Assesment Not Satisfied"- Bombay High Court Quashes IT Notice Against Tata Son Ltd For 2003-04 Case Title: Tata Sons Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 38 In a judgement earlier this month, the Bombay High Court quashed a notice issued by Income Tax authorities for the financial year 2003-2004 against Tata Sons Ltd – holding company of Tata Group's Companies. The bench observed that in case a company's income tax assessment was completed under section 143(3) and is proposed to be reopened after four years, an additional condition is required to be satisfied. Authorities need to record a satisfaction that the income escaped assessment because of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Whether these jurisdictional conditions are satisfied, has to be ascertained from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Since the notice issued to Tata did not justify the reasons to show that income had escaped assessment on account of the company's failure and reasons cited by the Assessing Officer merely showed "change of opinion" on the very same material, the notice deserved to be quashed. 3. Court Of Additional Sessions Judge Not Empowered To Try Offences Under IBC: Bombay High Court Case Title: Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and Anr. v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 39 In a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Bombay High Court ruled that the Court of Additional Sessions Judge is not "Special Court" in terms of Section 236 of the IB Code to try offences under the IB Code. Accepting the contentions of the petitioners, Justice Sandeep K Shinde clarified that the jurisdiction to try offences under the IB Code lies with the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class established as a Special Court under Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013 (as amended in 2017) and not with the Court of Additional Sessions Judge established under the same provision. 4. Arbitration | Every Violation Of Statute Not Against Fundamental Public Policy Of India, Exception Has To Be Construed Narrowly: Bombay High Court Case: Aircon Beibars FZE v. Heligo Charters Private Limited Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 40 While enforcing a foreign arbitral award, the Bombay High Court held that violation of a statute would not necessarily violate the fundamental policy of Indian law and the fundamental policy test must be applied according to the circumstances and facts of each case. Further stating that poor reasoning to reject a claim would not attract any public policy ground, unless the most basic notion of justice is offended, Justice A.K. Menon held that to lead to a violation of the fundamental public policy of India, a high threshold of 'egregious circumstances' like bribery, corruption or fraud and like circumstances that tamper with the most basic notions of morality and justice would apply. 5. Don't Register Writ Petition That Doesn't Set Out Specific Grounds – Bombay High Court To Registry Case Title: Ambhika Magasvargiya Mastyavaivasaik Sahakari ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 14 To February 20, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags