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

NOMINAL 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) 45

ROUND 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 Sanstha Maryadit, Jununwadi vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 41

The Bombay High Court has directed its Registry to not register any writ petition unless the same sets out specific grounds on which the petition is being moved and warned the department of strict action if any lapse was viewed in that regard.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice NB Suryawanshi, sitting in the Aurangabad Bench, directed, "The Registry shall ensure that, in future, no Writ Petition is registered unless specific grounds are set out therein upon which the writ petition is moved for grant of relief, as claimed by the petitioner. Any lapse in this regard will be viewed strictly."

6. Despite Women Empowerment Being Motto, Deprived Authorization To Women-Self Development Groups: Bombay HC On Cancellation Of Authorisation Of Mahila Bachat Gats

Case Title: Stawan Mahila Bachat Gat vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 42

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently ordered the District Supply officer (DSO) to restore authorisation of four Mahila Bachat Gats or Women Self Development Groups to maintain fair price shops.

Justice Bharati Dangre observed that their licence to run fair price shops was cancelled on "clumsy" and "non-existent" grounds and the Tehsildar to the highest level in the State government, deprived these organisations the opportunity of the empowering women in rural areas.

"I cannot refrain myself from commenting upon the approach of the State Authorities right from the level of the Tahsildar to the highest level of the State Government….. Woman empowerment being the motto of the State, in utter contrast, in this case the State Authorities have undermined the four bachat gats and in a flippant manner have deprived them an opportunity of empowering several women in rural area who had come together and formed a bachat gat who was allotted authorization to run the fair price shop.

7. Tax Authorities Duty Bound To Take Show- Cause Notice To Logical End Within Reasonable Time : Bombay HC Sets Aside 15 Year Old Notice

Case Title: The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of CGST & CX, Div-IX, Mumbai Central GST Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 43

Observing that a party cannot be expected to preserve evidence/record intact for a very long period and it cannot be made to suffer gross delay on the part of tax authorities, the Bombay High Court has set aside a show-cause notice issued 15 years back against Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited.

A division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and SM Modak, in an order passed earlier this week, observed, "It is not expected from the assessee to preserve the evidence/record intact for such a long period to be produced at the time of hearing of the Show-Cause Notice. The Respondent having issued the Show-Cause notice, it is their duty to take the said Show-Cause notice to its logical conclusion by adjudicating upon the said Show-Cause Notice within a reasonable period of time. In view of the gross delay on the part of the Respondent, the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer."

8. "Extra Judicial Confession To a Stranger Imprudent" - Bombay High Court Acquits Waiter Disbelieving Murder Confession to Customer

Case Title : Mansoorali Khan Ahmed Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 44

The Bombay High Court ruled that an extra-judicial confession would be made to a person in whom the maker of that statement reposes faith, and making it to a stranger or a person to whom the maker was only acquainted, was improbable.

A division bench of Justices Sadhana Jadhav and Prithviraj Chavan, while acquitting an accused convicted in 2010, observed, "Extra Judicial confession necessarily is to be made to a person in whom the maker of the statement reposes faith. Moreover, the accused had given graphic details of the act he committed, including the role of each of the accused persons and how they had killed both the deceased. It is rather tough to accept that the accused would make an extra-judicial confession to a stranger, passing by the road, who is only acquainted."

9. Maharashtra Govt's CCTV Project In Police Stations A 'Farce', Rs 60 Cr Wasted : Bombay High Court

Case Title : Somnath Laxman Giri & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 45

The Bombay High Court expressed its displeasure over a report submitted by the Maharashtra government on the status of installation of CCTV cameras inside police stations across the state and said the whole process was a farce and the money allotted for the project has been wasted.

A division bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and M N Jadhav noted that out of 1089 police stations, CCTV systems are installed in only 547 Police Stations since only two contractors have been selected to execute the project worth Rs 60 crore of installing CCTV systems. The court was further informed that 453 CCTV cameras which were recently installed are non-functional.

Important Updates

1. PMLA Court Grants Bail To Yes Bank Founder Rana Kapoor, Bindu Kapoor And Gautam Thapar

A special court in Mumbai granted bail to nine accused including Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor, his wife Bindu and businessman Gautam Thapar in a case related to property sale in Delhi. Kapoor and Thapar, however, won't walk out of the prison yet, as they are in custody in another case.

Special judge MG Deshpande, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), granted bail to them for Rs 5 lakh and surety for the like amount and set conditions like not to leave the country and to attend the court on all the dates.

2. Antilia Bomb Scare: Special NIA Court Refuses Bail To Former Encounter Specialist Pradeep Sharma

A special NIA court rejected the bail application filed by former Mumbai policeman and encounter specialist Pradeep Sharma in the Antilia bomb scare and Thane businessman Mansukh Hiran's murder case. He has been in custody since his arrest by the National Investigation Agency in June last year.

According to the charge sheet filed by the NIA in September last year, Sharma was allegedly assigned with the task of eliminating Hiran, owner of the explosives-laden car which was found abandoned near the South Mumbai residence of Industrialist Mukesh Ambani. He was allegedly paid a huge amount of cash for the task by co-accused and another former policeman Sachin Waze. Sharma is said to have executed the killing through his accomplice Santosh Shelar.

3. Dharavi Exam Cancellation Protest: Mumbai Sessions Court Grants Bail To YouTuber Vikas Phatak Aka Hindustani Bhau

A Sessions Court granted bail to social media influencer Vikas Phatak alias Hindustani Bhau accused of instigating students of class 10 & 12 to protest against the Maharashtra Goverment's plan to conduct offline examinations. The order was passed by Addl Sessions Judge PB Jadhav.

Bhau had filed the bail application against the magistrate's order refusing him bail. During the hearing, Bhau tendered an unconditional apology for the rioting that followed the protest.

4. CM's Statement On Presence Of Crowd With Saffron Flags During Bhima Koregaon Protest 'Extraneous' : NIA Court While Rejecting Bail

The NIA court has declined to consider Maharashtra's ex-Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis's statement in the State Legislative Assembly on the issue of caste violence at Bhima Koregaon while rejecting bail applications of three accused. The then Chief Minister had spoken on the floor of the house about the presence of around 200-300 people holding saffron flags, sloganeering at the place of the caste violence on January 1, 2018.

Special Judge DE Kothalikar observed that under Section 43D (5) of the NIA Act, regarding bail, he could only rely on the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) case diary and charge-sheet to record a prima facie satisfaction of guilty before denying bail.