Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: December 25, 2023 To December 31, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation 607 - 619]Gemini Developers v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 607Arti Rajesh Karangutkar v. Anna Rocky Fernandes and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 608Chintan Vidyasagar Upadhyay v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 609Tata Motors Finance Solutions Ltd v. Naushad Khan 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 610Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani v. Directorate Of Enforcement 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 611Rajinder Kaur Jaspal Singh Layal v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 612Marico Limited v. KLF Nirmal Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 613Tohid Rehman Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 614Nitin Shivdas Satpute v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 615Shailesh Ranka and Ors v. Windsor Machines Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 616K Raj & Company & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 617Deepak Sitaram Modhe v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 618Sitara Anil Sharma v. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra, Mumbai & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 619Reports/JudgmentsAdditional Fees For Changing Slum Developer's Structure Not Applicable When Owner Inducts Legal Heirs As Partners: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Gemini Developers v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 607The Bombay High Court held that additional fees applicable for changing the structure of a slum developer company/firm and inducting third parties is not applicable when the owner inducts his legal heirs as partners in order to ensure smooth transition after his death.Justice Milind N Jadhav quashed an order of the Slum Development Authority (SRA) directing a slum developer to pay additional fees after the owner converted the sole proprietorship to a partnership and inducted his legal heirs as partners. “it is crystal clear that the exemption provided in clause (ix) of the SRA office order dated 23.03.2015 is applicable to the facts of the Petitioner's case as the conversion of the proprietorship firm into partnership firm was never intended to induct any third party but only the legal heirs, which even otherwise eventually would have taken place after the demise of Mr. Ramesh Malhotra”, the court observed.Borrower Receiving Loan In Cash Liable For Cheque Dishonour Even If Loan Amount Was Beyond Limit For Cash Transactions Under IT Act: Bombay HCCase Title: Arti Rajesh Karangutkar v. Anna Rocky Fernandes and Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 608The Bombay High Court held that a borrower who received loan in cash is liable for dishonour of cheques issued towards repayment even if the loan amount was beyond the permissible limit for cash transactions under the Income Tax Act.Section 269-SS of the IT Act bars receipt of loan or deposit of more than Rs. 20,000 in cash.Justice PK Chavan convicted a woman in a cheque bounce case, rejecting her defence that there is a violation of Section 269-SS as the amount given in cash exceeded Rs. 20,000. “The penalty for taking such advance or deposit in contravention of provisions of Section 269-SS was to be suffered by the taker who accepts the advance. It is thus clear that no person should accept any loan or deposit of a sum of Rs.20,000/- or more otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. The provision does not say that a person cannot advance more than Rs.20,000/- in cash to another person. The learned Magistrate has wrongly invoked the aforesaid provisions while dismissing the complaint. As such, the provisions of Section 269-SS and 271D of the Income Tax Act have absolutely no bearing over the case in hand…”, the court said.Bombay High Court Refuses To Suspend Artist Chintan Upadhyay's Sentence, Says Evidence Supports Co-Accused's Confession, Bail Wasn't Granted On MeritsCase Title: Chintan Vidyasagar Upadhyay v. State of MaharashtraCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 609The Bombay High Court refused to suspend sentence of artist Chintan Upadhyay observing that the confession of co-accused Pradeep Rajbhar, which implicated Upadhyay, was supported by corroborating evidence and was true and voluntary.A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse dismissed the application for sentence suspension filed by Upadhyay, who was convicted in the 2015 double murder case of his ex-wife, Hema Upadhyay, and her lawyer, Haresh Bhambhani. “The aforesaid circumstances corroborate the confessional statement of co-accused-Pradeep which is found to be true and voluntary. It is also pertinent to note that bail granted by the Apex Court was not on merits but on account of long incarceration of the applicant i.e. 5 years and since about 12 witnesses were yet to be examined. Considering the overall evidence on record, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail”, the court held.Debt Owed To Financial Institutions Under SARFAESI Is Arbitrable, Not Debt Under RDDB Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Tata Motors Finance Solutions Ltd v. Naushad KhanCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 610The High...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up: December 25, 2023 To December 31, 2023

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags