Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 24 To January 30, 2022

1. Section 60/61 Contract Act - If Adjustment Is Made Towards A Particular Invoice, It Can't Extend Limitation For Other Outstanding Invoices: Bombay High Court Case Title: Anmol Steel Processors Pvt Ltd vs Colour Roof (India) Ltd Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 16 The Bombay High Court held that once payment is adjusted at the creditor's discretion under Section 60 of the Contract Act only to a few of the pending invoices instead of all, and the period of limitation has expired regarding all of them, the creditor then cannot claim a cheque getting dishonoured will extend the period of limitation on all pending payments. 2. Change Of Assessing Officer's Opinion Not Ground To Reopen Assessment U/S 147 Income Tax Act, Tangible Material Required: Bombay High Court Case Title: Vodafone Idea Ltd v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 17 In a case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Bombay High Court observed that where on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to reopen the assessment based on mere change of opinion. The Court further held that assessment can be reopened under Section 148 only on a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment on account of failure of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts that were necessary for computation of income but not in a case where the assessment is sought to be reopened on account of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer. 3. Completion Of Investigation Not A Condition Precedent For Eligibility Under 'Sabka Vishwas' Scheme: Bombay High Court Case Title: Nabeel Construction Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India And 2 Ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 18 Observing that a liberal interpretation had to be given to the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 (SVLDRS) as the intent was to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes pre-GST era, the Bombay High Court quashed a show-cause cum-demand notice against a construction company. 4. Motor Accident Compensation: Claimant Entitled To Future Loss Of Income Proportionate To Extent Of Disability Though There Is No Total Loss Of Income: Bombay High Court Case Title: Hareshwar Harishchandra Mistry v Pravin B. Nayak Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 19 The Bombay High Court held that while determining the compensation that the applicant would be entitled to on account of loss of future earnings, even if the applicant has not suffered total loss of income due to permanent disability. It was held that the claimant would be entitled to proportional of notional income corresponding to the extent of his disability. Accordingly, the Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant-claimant from Rs.50,000 to Rs.2,70,000. 5. State Instrumentalities Not Having Power To Create Posts Cannot Regularise Workers: Bombay High Court Reiterates Case Title: Raigad Zilla Parishad & Ors v Kailash Balu Mhatre & Ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 20 Bombay High Court reiterated that Standing Order 4C of the Model Standing Orders, framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 cannot be invoked with reference to State Instrumentalities or such local authorities, which do not have the power of creating posts. When an establishment cannot create posts, the declaration of ULP under Item 6 cannot be made against such establishment since temporary workers cannot be regularised, in the absence of sanctioned permanent posts. 6. Maharashtra Rent Control Act - Affidavit Mandatory For Application Seeking Leave To Defend Under Sec 43(4): Bombay High Court Case Title: Laxman Dadasaheb Jagtap v Additional Commissioner, Konkan Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 21 In a recent case, the Bombay High Court reiterated that in the absence of an affidavit, a simple application for leave to defend would not enable a petitioner to claim benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act. Section 4 of the Limitation Act provides that - Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court reopens. 7. 'Girl Child Is Not Property That Can Be Donated': Bombay HC Disturbed At 'Danpatra' By Gangrape Victim's Father To Godman Case Title: Shankeshwar @ Shambhu s/o Bhausaheb Dhakne vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 22 A girl child is not property that can be donated, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) observed during a bail hearing after it noticed a 'danpatra' according to which the rape victim's father had allegedly donated her to a self-proclaimed godman. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi directed the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to ascertain if the teen was fit to be declared as a 'child in ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 24 To January 30, 2022

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags