Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 23 To January 29, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 43 - 60]MA Multi-Infra Development Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 43Vishwanatha Sridhar Prabhu v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 44Axis Trustee Services Limited v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 45ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 46Yoko Sizzlers v. Yokoso Sizzlers 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 47Pradeep Sharma v. NIA 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 48Yogesh Laxman Pandav and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 49National Centre for the Performing Arts v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 50GoDaddy.com LLC & Anr. (Applicants) in Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Aanit Awattam & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 51Shivaji S/o Rajaram Take v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 52Shivkaran s/o Ganpati Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 53Bajaj Electricals Limited v. Chanda S. Khetawat & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 54Freedom City Ventures v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 55Zenobia Poonawala v. Rustom Ginwalla & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 56NAREDCO West Foundation v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 57All India Wine Producers Association v. Deputy Secretary and Assistant Chief Election Officer, Maharashtra State & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 58Amit S/o. Suresh Pali v. Rita D/o. Ramavtar Pal 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 59PSP Projects Limited v. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corp. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 60Reports/JudgmentsReassessment Notice after 4 Years should have the Sanction Of PCIT: Bombay High CourtCase Title: MA Multi-Infra Development Pvt. Ltd. v. ACITCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 43The Bombay High Court ruled that issuing a reassessment notice after four years is subject to the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT).The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata has ruled that the approval for the issuance of a notice under Section 148 ought not to have been obtained from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax but from the authority specifically mentioned under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act.The court allowed petitioner's challenge to a notice dated March 31, 2021, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the grounds that it was issued after the four-year period, which required approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 151(ii) of the Act.'Difficult To Comprehend Reasoning, Logic Or Rationale In This Order': Bombay High Stays IBBI Order Suspending Valuer's RegistrationCase Title: Vishwanatha Sridhar Prabhu v. Union of India & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 44The Bombay High Court granted a stay on an order passed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) against a Registered Valuer, saying that it was “difficult to comprehend the reasoning, logic or rationale” in the order.A division bench of Justices G S Patel and S G Dige stayed the operation of the IBBI order suspending Vishwanatha Prabhu's registration as a 'registered valuer' observing, “The impugned order seems to us to have completely overlooked the inherent absurdity that it creates. It proceeds on the basis that the mere pendency of a criminal proceeding robs a person such as the Petitioner of his “fit and proper person” status because it supposedly affects his 'integrity, reputation and character'.The reason for suspension was Prabhu's arrest in the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank-Housing and Development Infrastructure Ltd loan fraud case. The court said even charges have not been framed against Prabhu and it is entirely possible that the court in question, when it takes up the charge-sheet, may not in fact frame charges against him at all.Administrator Could Not Have Taken Policy Decision After Yes Bank Reconstruction: Bombay HC While Quashing Write Off Of AT-1BondsCase Title: Axis Trustee Services Limited v. Union of India and Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 45The Bombay High Court set aside Yes Bank's decision to write of Additional Tier 1 bonds Rs. 8415 Crore value observing that the RBI appointed Administrator could not have taken such a policy decision after the bank already stood reconstituted.A division bench of acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice S. M. Modak, while deciding a batch of petitions filed by the bond holders, noted that the final reconstruction scheme sanctioned by the central government did not contain any provision for writing down AT-1 bonds.Right to Choose Mother's Alone, Not Medical Board's; Court Can't Abrogate Her Right: Bombay High Court Allows Medical Termination of 33-Week PregnancyCase Title: ABC v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 46The decision to terminate a pregnancy is the woman's alone after a severe foetal abnormality is found irrespective of the length of the pregnancy, the Bombay High Court held while allowing a married woman to terminate her 33-week pregnancy against the advice of the Medical Board. The bench noted that the Medical Board had advised against the termination merely because...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 23 To January 29, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags