Bombay High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2022 [Citations 1-111]

XXX vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 1

Kishnabhai Nathubhai Ghutia & Anr Vs The Hon'ble Administrator Union Territory & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 2

Angre Port Private Ltd. Vs. TAG 15 (IMO. 9705550) & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 3

Ms. Kanaka Kedar Sapre & Mrs. Sudha Mukund Shukla (Mother) vs . Kedar Narhar Sapre & others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 4

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd v Badrinath Pema Rathod 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 5

Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt Ltd v. Union of India and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 6

Rishab Murali vs State of Maharashtra & oths 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 7

Udaynath Tirkey vs The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force & others 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 8

Suryakant Kisan Pawar vs Deputy Collector, Mumbai and others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 9

Renuka & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 10

Mulchand Dhanji Shah & Anr. V. Mr. Noordam Iraj Ahmad & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 11

Alice Realities Pvt Ltd v State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 12

Harvinder Kaur Vishakha Singh vs Tarvinder Singh K. Singh 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 13

Murli Industries Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. 2022 Live Law (Bom) 14

Mosa Anand Rajulu vs. M/s. V. Ships Monaco and Another 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 15

Anmol Steel Processors Pvt Ltd vs Colour Roof (India) Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 16

Vodafone Idea Ltd v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 17

Nabeel Construction Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India And 2 Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 18

Hareshwar Harishchandra Mistry v Pravin B. Nayak 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 19

Raigad Zilla Parishad & Ors v Kailash Balu Mhatre & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 20

Laxman Dadasaheb Jagtap v Additional Commissioner, Konkan 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 21

Shankeshwar @ Shambhu s/o Bhausaheb Dhakne vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 22

Somnath Laxman Giri vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 23

Sushitex Exports (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 24

CH Sharma & Oths Versus State of Maharashtra and others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 25

Shaikh Ruheena vs The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 26

Ajay Kumar v Directorate of Enforcement 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 27

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v Keshar Gopal Singh Thakur 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 28

UCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 29

Ms Moonline Express Cargo Pvt Ltd vs UoI through Divisional Railway Manager 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 30

Mahadev Sadhu Ingale vs The State Of Maharashtra & others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 31

Dr. Surendra Manjrekar vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 32

The State of Maharashtra vs Mohammad Aabed Mohammad Ajmir Shaikh 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 33

Komal Babusingh Ade and others vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 34

State of Maharashtra v. Gulab Dattu Patil & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 35

Essar Shipping Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 36

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

Mansoorali Khan Ahmed Khan vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 44

Somnath Laxman Giri & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 45

Datta Mane vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 46

Nitesh Singh & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 47

Saurabh Ashok Nikam vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 48

Amitabh Bachchan & Anr. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 49

Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta vs Bhansali Productions 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 50

Federation of Retail Trade vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 51

Kishor Ramesh Sohoni Versus Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 52

High Court on its own motion (in the matter of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi) vs Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation & Others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 53

Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 54

Ramesh Tukaram Vavekar vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 55

hashikala Surendra Ambade & Ors. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 56

Dr Anand Teltumbde vs National Investigation Agency 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 57

Pavan Morarka Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 2(3), Mumbai 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 58

Yohan Tengra vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 59

Larsen & Toubro Limited Versus Girish Dave, Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 60

HDFC Bank Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-2(3) 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 61

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1) and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 62

Jawahar Hiralal Mehta v. The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 63

Shalaka Infra-Tech India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus The Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 64

Rashtriya Shikshan Sangh and others vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 65

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Indofil Industries Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 66

Vivek Mehta & Anr. v/s. KaRRs Designs & Developments & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 67

Ravindra Hemraj Dhangekar V/S Ganesh Madhukar Bidkar & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 68

Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 69

Anurag s/o Jamnashankar Pandey Vs. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 70

Savina R Crasto vs Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 71

Pigments & Allieds Vs. Carboline (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 72

Intezar Hussain Sayed vs Zee Studios & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 73

Shankar Bhimrao Kadam & Ors vs Tata Motors Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 74

Basant Singh and Ors. v. Autar Kaur and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 75

Janak Vyas vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 76

M/s. Royale Urbanspace and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 77

Rajendra Goyal alias Raju Goyal vs PIO and connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 78

Resilient Innovations Private Ltd. vs Phonepe Private Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 79

Ingram Micro INC. vs The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation) 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 80

Pankaj s/o Roshan Dhawan Versus National e-Assessment Centre 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 81

Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik vs The Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 82

Rachna Sanjay Kuwar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 83

Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs ITO 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 84

Vishnu Rajaram Thakar Vs. State of Maharashtra,Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 85

Forum Against Oppression of Women in P vs A & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 86

Sankalp Resorts Limited & ors vs State of Maharashtra and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 87

World Sport Group (India) Private Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 88

Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 89

Dr. Sonal Pratapsingh Vahanwala v. Deputy District Collector, Dharavi 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 90

The State of Maharashtra v Shadab Tabarak Khan 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 91

Manojkumar Omprakash Dalmia vs Omprakash Dalmia and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 92

Shrikrupa Stone Crusher v State of Maharashtra and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 93

Invesco Developing Markets Fund vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 94

Poorti Rent a Car and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & ors. vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 95

Mariyayi Machhimaar Sahkari Sansthya Maryadit vs Department of Fisheries and others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 96

Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Rajkumar Nagpal & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 97

Perizad Zorabian Irani vs PCIT And Ors.2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 98

CA. Manisha Mehta and ors. vs The Board of Directors of Represented by its Managing Director of ICICI Bank and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 99

RPG Enterprises Limited vs Riju Ghoshal and anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 100

Hriday Niraj Mehta vs Umesh Jayantilal Mehta and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 101

Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 102

Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors vs Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 103

Gautam Thapar vs Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 104

Trilok Singh Gandhi vs Rajendra Kaushalraj Mehta 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 105

Sadiq Shafi Qureshi vs M.D. and C.E.O.,Union Bank of India and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 106

V.N.Reddy vs The Superintending Engineer and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 107

Sabhajit Ramyash Yadav and ors v sState of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 108

Satara District Bar Association, Satara vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 109

Hotel & Restaurant Association (Western India) and Ors. vs Commissioner, State Excise and Ors. with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 110

Varsha Deepak Desale vs The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 111

1. Bombay High Court Orders Constitution of Medical Boards For Medical Termination Of Pregnancy As Mandated under the MTP Act

Case Title: XXX vs State of Maharashtra

Case No: Writ Petition (L) NO.31015 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 1

The Bombay High Court directed the state Government to forthwith constitute medical boards based on the Amended Act on 'medical termination of pregnancy (MTP)', to easy the hardship caused to a women seeking termination of her pregnancy.

The bench observed that Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021 has increased the limitation to undergo medical termination of pregnancy from the earlier 20 weeks to 24 weeks. It further added that section 3(2B), in fact, carved out an exception in cases of foetal abnormalities and did not limit such termination to the 24 weeks period otherwise provided in the subsection.

2. 'Nobody Has A Fundamental Right To A Public Holiday': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Kishnabhai Nathubhai Ghutia & Anr Vs The Hon'ble Administrator Union Territory & Ors.

Case No: Writ Petition (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) - 9602 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 2

The Bombay High Court has held that declaring a public holiday is a matter of governmental policy, and there is nobody can claim a fundamental right to public holidays. A Divison Bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar observed, "There is no legally enforceable right that can be said to have been infringed. Nobody has a fundamental right to a public holiday."

3. IBC & Admiralty Act Interplay - Insolvency Proceedings Against Shipping Company Won't Bar Suit Against Vessel : Bombay High Court

Case Title: Case Title: Angre Port Private Ltd. Vs. TAG 15 (IMO. 9705550) & Anr

Case No: COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT(L) NO. 4 OF 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 3

In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court has held that a Shipping Company slipping into liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code will not impact an ongoing Admiralty Suit against its Vessel as the two are separate entities. The judgement authored by Justice BP Colabawalla explains the interplay between the bar against further suits and proceedings under S.33 (5) of the IBC, 2016 and the Admiralty Act and the effect that insolvency proceedings would have on admiralty claims. The judgement also holds that Penal Birth Hire charger are not in the nature of a penalty and therefore damages would not have to be proved as required under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act.

4. S 12 -Legal Representative Cannot Seek Compensation Under Domestic Violence Act AfterWoman's Demise – Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ms. Kanaka Kedar Sapre & Mrs. Sudha Mukund Shukla (Mother) vs . Kedar Narhar Sapre & others

Case No: Cri WP 2790 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 4

The Bombay High Court ruled that an aggrieved person, as defined under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), "must be alive at the time of filing of the petition", and someone cannot file an application for monetary reliefs under the act after her demise.

The court dismissed an application filed by a minor girl (through her maternal grandmother) "on behalf of her mother" seeking monetary reliefs, streedhan and compensation against her father and paternal grandparents.

5. Lok Adalat Cannot Adjudicate Disputes Relating To Offences If No Settlement Is Arrived At: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd vs. Badrinath Pema Rathod

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 5

In a significant judgement explaining the interplay of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and the Electricity Act, 2003 a single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court noted that where a dispute brought before the Permanent Lok Adalat amounts to a compoundable offence it can be entertained by the Permanent Lok Adalat for the purpose of effecting a conciliation and settlement. But if the conciliation fails, then it is not within the power of the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate the matter on merits, if it relates to an offence, despite the offence being compoundable.

6. COVID-Supreme Court Order Suspending Limitation Is Applicable For Refund Under GST Act – Bombay High Court

Case Title: Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt Ltd v. Union of India and Anr.

Case No: WPL 1275 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 6

The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside an order of the Assistant Commissioner of CGST refusing refund of GST paid by a private export company on the ground that the company's application was time barred or not filed within the limitation period prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) Act.

A division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and SM Modak observed that the Supreme Court's decision from March 2020, extending the time limit prescribed under the general or special laws, for proceedings due to the Covid-19 pandemic apply in the present case.

7. Bombay High Court Allows Age-Barred Law Graduate To Participate In Judges Selection As Recruitments Got Stalled Due To COVID

Case Title: Rishab Murali vs State of Maharashtra & oths

Case No: WPL 156/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 7

In an interim relief to a law graduate from Mumbai, the Bombay High Court has allowed him to participate in the ongoing recruitment process for post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate (First Class), despite being "age-barred."

The petitioner contended that he was age-barred as the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) did not issue any advertisement for applications last year due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

8. Bombay High Court Reinstates CISF Constable Accused Of Raping Colleague's 5-yr-old Daughter

Case Title: Udaynath Tirkey vs The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force & othrs

Case No: WP 6859 of 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 8

The Bombay High Court has held that being accused of a heinous crime is not a good enough reason not to conduct a departmental enquiry before dismissing a constable from service under Rule 39(ii) of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Rules akin to Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

The court quashed the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)'s orders regarding the dismissal of a constable for allegedly raping a colleague's five-year-old daughter. Instead, it ordered the constable's reinstatement with a rider that CISF was not barred from initiating an enquiry subsequently.

9. Senior Citizens Act: Bombay High Court Refuses Relief To Son Who Became Mother's Tenant & Dishoused Her Without Rent

Case Title: Suryakant Kisan Pawar vs Deputy Collector, Mumbai and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 9

The Bombay High Court directed a son who "deprived his mother from leading a normal life" to vacate the house "expeditiously", noting that the mother had suffered immensely since over five years.

Justice Girish Kulkarni observed that it was "astonishing" how the 48-year-old son had invented a novel way of entering the septuagenarian mother's house. He signed a rent agreement with her, with no intention of honouring the agreement as he didn't pay a single rupee to her until she did not approach the authorities against him.

10. Mercy Petitions Not Decided For Over 7 Years' : Bombay High Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Two Women

Case Title: Renuka & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 10

Sixteen years after the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty of half-sisters Renuka Shinde and Seema Gavit for kidnapping 13 children and murdering at least five of them, the Bombay High Court has commuted their sentence to life imprisonment, due to the 7 years, 10 months and 15 days delay in deciding their mercy petitions.

"Despite this legal position only due to the casual approach of the officers of the respondent state (Maharashtra) the mercy petitions were not decided…Though the procedure for deciding mercy petitions mandates speed and expediency the state machinery showed indifference and laxity at each stage. That it took seven years only for the movement of files of such a grave issue is unacceptable when electronic communications were available to be used."

11. Motor Accident Claim| 'Future Prospects' Ought To Be Allowed For Those With Notional Income: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Mulchand Dhanji Shah & Anr. V. Mr. Noordam Iraj Ahmad & Ors.

Case No: First Appeal No. 1005/2019 (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 11

The Bombay High Court ruled that lack of evidence supporting the income of the deceased does not justify ascertaining notional income at the minimum tier of wage in determining compensation.

It partly allowed an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, in an appeal against the compensation awarded to kin of a deceased of a motor accident.

12. Transfer Of Tenancy Does Not Amount To Creation Of New Tenancy: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Alice Realities Pvt Ltd v State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 12

A Bench of Justices G.S.Patel and Madhav J.Jamdar of the Bombay High Court observed that the transfer of tenancy would not amount to the creation of a "new" tenancy under the MHADA Act and Development Control Regulations, 1991.

The Court held that in cases of mere transfer of tenancy, which is not the same as creation of new tenancy, the prohibition in DCR 33 (7) and Appendix-III would not apply. It also holds that the only concern under the Rent Act and DC Regulations should be whether a new tenancy has been created and not whether the entities which have acquired tenancy are connected to one another.

13. Death Caused By Stress & Strain During Employment - Bombay High Court Directs Employer To Compensate

Case Title: Smt. Harvinder Kaur Vishakha Singh vs Tarvinder Singh K. Singh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 13

The Bombay High Court directed an employer to compensate the kin of a truck driver, observing that the stress and strain caused during his employment had ultimately led to his demise.

Justice NJ Jamadar held that the deceased driver's heart attack could be termed an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, as contemplated under Section 3 of the Workman's Compensation Act.

"I am persuaded to hold that in the facts of the instant case, the death of the deceased can be said to have been accelerated on account of the stress and strain associated with the long distance driving for almost 18 days in trying circumstances. Any other view of the matter would defeat the beneficial object of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act,1923."

14. IBC| Statutory Authority Can't Raise Fresh Claim Against Corporate Debtor After Approval Of Resolution Plan: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Murli Industries Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Citation: 2022 Live Law (Bom) 14

The Bombay High Court ruled that no statutory authority, including the Income Tax authorities, can raise a fresh claim against a Corporate Debtor after the Resolution Plan was finalized and approved.

A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Anil Pansare of the Nagpur Bench of High Court observed that entertaining undecided claims after the Resolution Plan was submitted, would lead to uncertainty about the amount payable by the prospective Resolution Applicant who would've successfully taken over the business of the Corporate Debtor.

15. Unregistered Agreement Can't Be Enforced Under Employees Compensation Act To Seek Higher Compensation: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Mosa Anand Rajulu vs. M/s. V. Ships Monaco and Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Bom) 15

An unregistered agreement between an employer and employee cannot be enforced to seek more compensation than what is already prescribed for cases of disability under the Employees Compensation Act 1923 (ECA), the Bombay High Court held.

"Section 29 thus reinforces the principle that compensation is required to be paid in accordance with provisions of the Act, 1923, save and except in a case where the agreement is registered under section 28," the court held.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. '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 need of care and protection' as contemplated under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

23. 'CCTVs In Police Stations Deliberately Kept Non-Functional' : Bombay High Court Seeks Report From Maharashtra Govt

Case Title: Somnath Laxman Giri vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 23

The Bombay High Court took strong exception to the seemingly deliberate non-functioning of CCTV cameras inside police stations and directed Maharashtra's Chief Secretary to take "stern action" against police officers for not reporting cameras that required repair.

24. Not Required To Show Prejudice, Where There Is Violation Of Fundamental Rights – Bombay High Court Directs Customs To Pay Rs. 2cr For 23 Year Delay

Case Title: Sushitex Exports (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 24

The Bombay High Court directed the Customs department to refund Rs 2 crore along with an interest of 12% per annum to a fabric-exporter due to the delay of 23 years in deciding a fraud case initiated against him.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik observed while setting aside the demand notice, "While the respondents' right in law to initiate proceedings for violation of the provisions of the Act can never be disputed, at the same time they do not have the unfettered right to choose a time for its termination and conclude proceedings as per their convenience."

25. Consider Decentralization Of Medical Purchases For Hospitals : Bombay High Court To Maharashtra Govt

Case Title: CH Sharma & Oths Versus State of Maharashtra and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 25

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra Government to consider de-centralizing the purchase of medical essentials for medical colleges and hospitals in the state.

"We are of the view that in the interest of efficient management of Hospitals and making available proper treatment to patients being admitted to the Government Hospitals in an effective and quicker manner, it is necessary that the Deans of these colleges are permitted to make purchases of all the medical essentials at their respective levels…" the bench observed.

26. "Shocking" Can't Keep A Prisoner In Solitary Confinement For More Than 14 Days - Bombay High Court Rescues Convict After 2.4 Years In Anda Cell

Case Title: Shaikh Ruheena vs The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 26

"I have forgotten how to communicate with human beings, every human feeling has been wiped out, even animals are not kept like this," Imran Shaikh a convicted prisoner in solitary confinement for 2 years and four months, had written in anguish to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad, in vain.

Last week, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench took cognisance of Shaikh's wife's letter, and directed prison official to transfer him to an ordinary prison cell with immediate effect, and ordered a team of doctors visit prison and ascertain his condition.

The court, further, directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, to visit Shaikh in prison, record his statement and report to the High Court on the condition of the Anda cell.

27. S.45 PMLA: Twin Conditions For Bail That Were Declared Unconstitutional By SC Stand Revived By 2018 Amendment Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ajay Kumar v Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 27

In a recent case, a two-judge bench of the Bombay High Court noted that the twin conditions for bail in section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which were declared unconstitutional by the judgment of the Apex Court in Nikesh T.Shah Vs. Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 1, stand revived in view of the Legislative intervention vide Amendment Act 13 of 2018.

In doing so, the division bench has departed from the view earlier expressed by a single bench of the Bombay High Court in Sameer M. Bhujbal Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement.

28. Loss of Ability to Perform Work Undertaken By Workman Prior to Accident Qualifies as 100% Loss Of Earning Capacity : Bombay HC

Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd v Keshar Gopal Singh Thakur

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 28

The Bombay High Court reiterated that the work that a victim was performing before the accident has relevance to the determination of the question as to whether he is permanently incapacitated to perform the work.

The Court observed that the distinction between physical disability and functional disability has to be kept in mind while determining whether the applicant has suffered 100% loss of income.

29. Sabka Vishwas Scheme - Enquiry Initiated After Deadline Will Not Bar Filing Of Voluntary Disclosure :Bombay HC

Case Title: UCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 29

The Bombay High Court ruled that initiation of investigation by the Goods and Services Tax authorities after June 30, 2019 – deadline for Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) – cannot be a bar for the authorities to consider a declaration filed by a party under the SVLDR scheme.

Navi Mumbai based UCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, had on September 9, 2019, filed an Electronic Declaration form under SVLDRS-1 on the website of Central Board of Excise and Customs website under 'voluntary category' which was rejected on the ground that investigation against the petitioner had been initiated before they opted for the said scheme.

30. A Company Cannot be Blacklisted without Warning of Debarment in Show Cause Notice. Blacklisting Causes Civil Death, Clear Show Cause Notice & Due Process A Must: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ms Moonline Express Cargo Pvt Ltd vs UoI through Divisional Railway Manager

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 30

Observing that an entity cannot be blacklisted from participating in future contracts without being allowed a proper opportunity to defend itself and without following the due process of law, the Bombay High Court granted interim relief to a company in a contract with the Railways.

The court held that the railway officials had not given the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend his stand by failing to mention the possibility of debarment in the show-cause notice.

31. Subsequent Reconstruction Of File Records Doesn't Change Original Filing Date: Bombay High Court

Case Tile: Mahadev Sadhu Ingale vs The State Of Maharashtra & others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 31

The limitation period for considering an appeal (reference) against a land acquisition order must be calculated from the date an application was first filed and not from the date a missing appeal copy was reconstructed and submitted by the applicant, the Bombay High Court held.

The court set aside the Deputy Collector's (Sangli) order rejecting an application to refer the acquisition proceedings to a competent court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It observed that merely because the documents were not traceable in the Deputy Collector's office and the petitioner had to reconstruct them, it didn't mean the application was filed later.

32. 'Employer Entitled To Carry On Business In Company's Best Interest': Bombay HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In Employee's Abetment To Suicide Case

Case Title: Dr. Surendra Manjrekar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 Live Law (Bom) 32

The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to former Director of a company accused of abetting the suicide of an employee, observing that all the allegations seemed to be part of "normal course of business" and that a company was "entitled to carry its business in the manner that was in the best interest of the company."

In the order, Justice Sarang Kotwal observed that the deceased, Nikhil Joshi, was taking treatment for stress management and was in a disturbed state of mind.

"Though, there are allegations that he was disturbed because of stress in the company, the company was entitled to carry its business in the manner that was in the best interest of the company. That by itself would not mean that the bigger targets were given and meeting was arranged, so that the deceased would commit suicide," the court observed.

33. "Mujhse Bahut Badi Galti Huwi Hai": Bombay High Court Cites Extra-Judicial Confession To Uphold Conviction as also Commute Death Penalty Of 23 Yr Old

Case Title: The State of Maharashtra vs Mohammad Aabed Mohammad Ajmir Shaikh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 33

An extra-judicial confession made voluntarily, free from threat or inducement, carries the presumption of truth, Bombay High Court observed adding that depending on the facts of the case, a confession doesn't need to be presumed as weak piece of evidence.

Other considerations that weighed in with the bench were that the accused brought forth his crime by confessing to his friend, the accused's family neither tried to destroy evidence nor made attempts to conceal the accused. They also did not try to win over the friend to whom the extra judicial confession was made. In fact, the brother helped the police arrest the accused.

34. 'Parrot-Like Testimonies Of 6 Eye Witnesses, Humanly Impossible': Bombay High Court Acquits 20 Persons In Murder Case

Case Title: Komal Babusingh Ade and others vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 34

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, acquitted 20 persons in a murder case, citing identical and parrot-like version of all the star prosecution witnesses, calling it as "humanly impossible".

A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Pushpa Ganediwala, observed in the judgement, "It's difficult to believe that six eyewitnesses deposed in an identical fashion with each and every minute detail. In our considered opinion, it's humanly impossible. Not a single independent witness (except police and medical witness) was examined even when it is not the case that the incident occurred in isolation or during late night hours."

35. Due Caution Must Be Exercised By Appellate Court Before Reversing Acquittal Orders By Trial Courts: Bombay High Court

Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Gulab Dattu Patil & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 35

Even if the appellate court is inclined to re-evaluate and re-appreciate evidence on record to take a different approach, such interference is not justified when the trial court's view is a possible view, not marred with perversity or unreasonableness and thus, the appellate Courts must exercise a great deal of caution before disturbing the factual findings recorded by the trial court, Bombay High Court held.

36. Customs Duty Circular Not Applicable To 'Finalised' Benefits Under SFI Scheme: Bombay High Court Quashes Rs. 27.4 Crore Demand Notice To Essar Group

Case Title: Essar Shipping Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 36

The Bombay High Court set aside a demand notice issued by the Joint Director-General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) against Essar Shipping Ltd, though the court upheld the validity of the circular under which the demand was made. The court held that the circular was restricted only to those cases where the claims were "being finalised" and therefore would not apply to Essar's case as it was already finalised by the concerned authorities.

The notice and the reminder which were set aside by the High Court sought Rs 27.40 crore from the company comprising customs duty and interest on the basis of the benefits already availed and utilised on account of its entitlement under the Served from India (SFI) Scheme.

37. 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."

38. "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.

39. 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.

40. Arbitration | Every Violation Of Statute Not Against Fundamental Public Policy Of India, Exception Has To Be Construed Narrowly: Bombay High Court

Case Title: 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.

41. 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."

42. 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.

43. 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."

44. "Extra Judicial Confession To a Stranger Improbable" - 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."

45. 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.

46. Maharashtra Govt Appoints DGP From UPSC Panel, Bombay High Court Disposes Of Advocate's PIL

Case Title: Datta Mane vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 46

High Court disposed of an advocate's PIL seeking appointment of a permanent Director General of Police in Maharashtra from the three names recommended by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) panel after the State appointed IPS officer Rajnish Seth as the new DGP on February 18.

The state decided to reconsider its decision after the High Court observed that the state had gone out of it's way to push the case of its senior most IPS officer - Sanjay Pandey's name for DGP.

47. Section 18 (2) MMC Act - In Maharashtra, Election Commissioner Can Delegate Any of His Powers to Civic Officer Above Rank of Ward Officer

Case Title: Nitesh Singh & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 47

Observing that a PIL filed by rival political party members (BJP and MNS) against the ruling Maha Vikas Aghadi coalition in Maharashtra was "politically motivated" and without "necessary disclosures" the Bombay High Court dismissed the plea and imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner

The bench held that under Article 243ZA(2) the state is permitted to make provisions regarding election to Municipalities. In Maharashtra, the State Election Commissioner may by order delegate any of his powers and functions to any officer of the Corporation not below the rank of the Ward Officer according to section 18(2) of the MMC Act.

The High Court held that according to an SEC order from January 27, 2005 there is a bar on re-drawing the limits of a municipal corporation six months before the election. However, "The bar does not apply to alteration of Ward boundaries within the Corporation area."

48. Caste Certificate Can't Be Denied Saying Claimant's Lifestyle Does Not Match Traditional Community Traits; Affinity Test Not The Litmus Test: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Saurabh Ashok Nikam vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 48

Observing that affinity test is not the litmus test for a Caste Validity Certificate when family members' documents from as far back as the year 1927 show the same caste, the Bombay High Court directed issuance of caste certificate to the petitioner before the court.

"In our view, if anyone claims he belongs to a particular caste, one cannot expect that such person should use traditions and traits of that community in his day to day life, as due to modernisation, the present lifestyle of particular community may not match with traditional characteristics of their tribe community. The affinity test is not a litmus test," a division bench ruled recently.

The bench, by the abovementioned observation, also negated the Caste Scrutiny Committee's observations that the petitioners dialect of 'impure Marathi' was differed from the Thakur community's dialect. Moreover, the petitioner's festival and marriage rituals were performed the Hindu way instead of the traditional Thakur community way.

49. Juhu Land Acquisition Row: Bombay HC Directs BMC To Decide Amitabh Bachchan's Representation, No Coercive Action Till Then

Case Title: Amitabh Bachchan & Anr. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 49

The court protected actor Amitabh Bachchan and his wife Jaya Bachchan for 11 weeks over notices for acquisition of a part of their Juhu land for road widening. This is the same plot on which their bungalow Prateeksha stands.

It directed the Municipal Commissioner to decide a February 17, 2022 representation made by the family within six weeks. If required by the petitioners or the commissioner, a personal hearing may be given, the bench said.

The Bachchans had contended that the notices fall under a section of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act that is inconsistent with safeguards under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and therefore void.

50. Can't Decide Whether A Film's Material Denigrates A Community Or Not Without A Challenge To Censor Certificate: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta vs Bhansali Productions

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 50

There can be no prohibition on a film's exhibition in the absence of a challenge to the censor certificate issued by the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC), the Bombay High Court held refusing any reliefs in a clutch of petitions against the movie Gangubai Kathiawadi which was due for release on February 25.

"The rule of exhaustion of an efficacious alternative remedy applies also in a public interest litigation as it does in respect of a litigation initiated in private interest," a division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik observed dismissing two PILs and disposing of a petition.

51. Making Marathi Signboards Mandatory Reasonable, No Violation Of Retailers' Fundamental Rights : Bombay High Court

Case Title: Federation of Retail Trade vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 51

The Bombay High Court upheld the Maharashtra government's decision making it mandatory for all shops and establishments in the state to display signboards in Marathi written in the Devanagri script, and rejected a petition challenging the decision with cost.

"A Public purpose is sought to be achieved by the said Rule. There is a broader public purpose and rationale. Marathi may be the official language of the state government, but it is an undeniably common language and mother tongue of the state… It has its own extremely rich and diverse cultural traditions extending to every field of endeavour from literature to theatre and beyond. There are texts in Marathi which are expressed and written in Devanagri," the division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar observed.

52. Bombay High Court Directs RBI To Replace Maharashtra Resident's Demonetized Notes Worth ₹1.6L With New & Valid Currency

Case Title: Kishor Ramesh Sohoni Versus Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 52

The Bombay High Court recently directed the Reserve Bank of India to replace a man's demonetized notes worth Rs 1.6 lakh with new and valid currency notes.

The division bench comprising Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Madhav Jamdar passed the order in the petition filed by Kishor Sohoni, who had deposited the said amount, in cash, with the police station, pursuant to Court orders, prior to demonetization.

After the Government of India Notification of 8th November 2016 which demonetized certain currency notes, the Petitioner said that he believed that since his cash was with an authority it was protected from demonetization. However, when the Magistrate directed the Petitioner on 20th March 2017 to collect the money from the police station, he was handed the old currency notes, all by then demonetized.

53. Building Collapse - Take Penal Action Against Municipal Officers Allowing Unauthorized Constructions: Bombay High Court Issues Guidelines

Case Title: High Court on its own motion (in the matter of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi) vs Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation & Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 53

In a landmark judgement the Bombay High Court issued a slew of directions regarding action to be taken against illegal construction and in the event of building collapses. The court emphasized the need for mass public housing.

The court directed the Municipal Commissioner to take action prosecute officers found to be aiding the non-removal of illegal construction beyond six months under Municipal laws, in addition the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, apart from initiating disciplinary proceedings.

It held that for any new slum project, an NOC stating that the land is not required for public purpose would be necessary. Moreover, if the land is required for public purpose, it must be cleared within a year and slum dwellers can be relocated in Mumbai and neighbouring areas.

The court also held that the MCGM, being the planning authority, was not barred from implementing provisions of the MMC Act and the MRTP Act just because an area is declared a slum. This would especially apply if the structures are dilapidated and/or in any manner unauthorized.

54. Ajit Pawar Breached 'Solemn Duty' By Not Disclosing Personal Interest In Lavasa Project: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: LiveLaw 2022 (Bom) 54

Despite finding irregularities and political influence by Sharad Pawar and his family members in extending largesse to Maharashtra's only private hill station project called Lavasa, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the project on the ground of delay.

"At this distance of time, when even Lavasa Corporation's existence is under a cloud, the contentions as raised by the amicus as well as the petitioner as regards inertia to call for tender/auction, unlawful permissions and unauthorized change of rates, in the facts of this case, are reduced to mere academic interest rather than of practical importance. The objection relating to gross delay assumes importance in view of several subsequent or intervening events after accrual of the cause of action to move the Court. Although the cause of action arose from 1996, the petitioner approached the Court for the first time in 2011, and thereafter in 2013 and finally in 2018," the bench observed.

55. Child Born Out Of POCSO Crime A "Victim" As Defined Under Section 2(wa) CrPC : Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ramesh Tukaram Vavekar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 55

Reducing the life sentence awarded to a rape convict to 10 years, the Bombay High Court directed him to pay compensation to the child born out of his illicit acts observing that the baby was also "victim" as contemplated under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.

The victim had not only been abandoned by the appellant but also by her real mother(PW 1). They did not stop there but had put the life of the newly born child into jeopardy by sending him in an Orphanage. In view of Section 2(w a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir. The child born to the victim is indeed her legal heir and also a victim in view of the definition of "victim" and therefore, he must be adequately compensated for as it was the appellant who is responsible for bringing him in this world and then abandoning him at the mercy of an Orphanage.

56. Bombay High Court Pulls Up District Officials For Destroying Farmers' Crops For Mahashivratri Celebrations

Case Title: Shashikala Surendra Ambade & Ors. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 56

The Bombay High Court, restrained local State and Civic body officials in Kolhapur district from using any part of the field of a farmer for the festival of Mahashivratri on which the farmer had grown soyabean crop.

The authorities submitted that an entry in the petitioner's land records (7/12 extract) endorsed that during the Mahashivratri festival, the authorities would take possession of the petitioners' land for a period of 15 days for the festivities.

"We do not understand under which provision of law, such an endorsement is made/allowed and how the plot of the petitioners can be taken away for a period of 15 days especially when the petitioners are growing soyabean crop on the said field. Even if this practice has been adopted in the past, the same cannot be relied upon as a precedent and the Court is required to stop such practice once it is opposed by the petitioners," the court order noted.

57. Bhima Koregaon: Bombay High Court Allows Anand Teltumbde To Visit Nonagenarian Mother For 2 Days Following Brother's Death In An Encounter, Directed to Spend Night in Custody

Case Title: Dr Anand Teltumbde vs National Investigation Agency

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 57

Three months after his brother's demise in an encounter, the Bombay High Court permitted Dalit scholar Anand Teltumbde to meet his nonagenarian mother in Chandrapur on March 8 and 9, 2022 under escort protection.

The court partly allowed the application and directed Teltumbde to be taken to Chandrapur by police escorts by the afternoon of March 8, 2022. However, he has not been permitted to spend the night at home and will be taken in custody in the closest prison.

58. Reopening Of Income Tax Assessment Can't Be Allowed On Grounds Of Future Contingencies: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pavan Morarka Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 2(3), Mumbai

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 58

The Bombay High Court held that the reopening of Income Tax Assessment cannot be allowed on grounds of future contingencies.

The division bench noted that the entire exercise of reassessment is only contingent on a future event and a consequence that may endure upon the decision of the Tribunal, that again if the Tribunal were to hold against the Revenue. A reopening of an assessment under Section 148 cannot be justified on such a basis. There has to be a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment.

59. Despite High Court Nudge, Maharashtra Govt Refuses To Withdraw Restrictions On Unvaccinated Using Local Trains

Case Title:Yohan Tengra vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 59

The Bombay High Court disposed of two PILs after the Maharashtra government said that it won't withdraw restrictions imposed on individuals on the basis of their vaccination status from boarding local trains, visiting malls or places of employment.

"In our order dated February 22, we have observed that the state, in previously issuing orders restricting travel by public transport, had imposed restrictions in a manner which had no sanction of... Having regard to gross violations in imposing restrictions since August 10, 2021, it would have been better for us to strike down the further orders passed by the state government…However, we had reposed hope and trust that SEC would take a decision which is reasonable and not in derogation of fundamental rights of citizens protected by article 19 (1) (d). We are mistaken."

60. Payments Towards Charter Hire Of Tugs, Barges Made To Non-Resident Assessee Assessable U/S 44BB: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Larsen & Toubro Limited Versus Girish Dave, Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 60

The Bombay High Court held that the payments made towards charter hire of tugs and barges made to non-resident assessee in execution of contract with Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ONGC) are assessable under Section 44BB of Income Tax Act and are entitled to special dispensation.

The bench said that the payments made by the ONGC and received by the non-resident assessees or foreign companies under the contracts were more properly assessable under the provisions of Section 44BB and not under Section 44D of the Act.

61. Relief To HDFC Bank: Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice As Jurisdictional Condition Not Satisfied

Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-2(3)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 61

In a major relief to the HDFC Bank, the Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment notice as the jurisdictional condition for invoking the power under section 147 of the Income Tax Act was not satisfied.

The division bench observed that once, it is held that the jurisdictional condition for invoking the power under section 147 is not satisfied for a particular assessment year, the notice for reopening cannot be sustained. Then, it does not matter that the assessee did not assailed the notice for reopening in respect of preceding or succeeding years.

62. 'Reasons To Believe' Ought To Spell Out All Reasons, Grounds For Reopening Income Tax Assessment: Bombay High Court Comes Down Heavily On Income Tax Dept

Case Title: Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1) and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 62

The Bombay High Court has come down heavily on the Income Tax Department for not being transparent with tax payers in sharing the requested information basis of reopening action.

The division bench relied on the judgement of the Delhi High Court in case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax wherein the guidelines has been laid down on reopening cases for assessing officers (AO) for strict compliance.

As per the guidelines, while communicating the reasons for reopening the assessment, the copy of the standard form used by the Assessing Officer for obtaining the approval of the Superior Officer should itself be provided to the assessee. This would contain the comment or endorsement of the Superior Officer with his name, designation and date. In other words, merely stating the reasons in a letter addressed by the Assessing Officer to the assessee is to be avoided.

63. Sections 126 & 127 Of MRTP Act Require Expeditious Acquisition Of Land Reserved, Failing Which Reservation Lapses: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Jawahar Hiralal Mehta v. The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 63

The Bombay High Court held that sections 126 and 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 ( "MRTP Act") require expeditious acquisition of the land reserved. Section 127 gives time to either acquire the land or take steps for acquisition within a period of twenty-four months from the date of service of notice by the land owner for purchase.

A bench noted that if Respondents failed to acquire the land within the stipulated period, then as per the provisions of section 127 (1) of the MRTP Act, the reservation clamped on the said land "automatically lapses".

64. Issue Norms As To How Many Times Summons Can Be Issued During Investigations: Bombay High Court Directs GST Dept

Case Title: Shalaka Infra-Tech India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus The Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 64

The Bombay High Court directed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Department to issue norms as to how many times summons can be issued during investigations.

The division bench of Justice S.M.Modak and Justice R.D.Dhanuka ordered the Department/respondents to indicate as to how many time summons were issued by the respondents to the petitioners, for what purpose and the progress of the investigation during this period. Affidavit shall also indicate as to when the investigation would be completed by the respondents against the petitioners.

65. Executive Power Of State Under Article 162 Constitution Not Available When Field Of Law Is Occupied By Legislative Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rashtriya Shikshan Sangh and others vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 65

The power of the State Government to issue executive directions is confined to filling up the gaps or covering the area which otherwise has not been covered by the existing statutory rules, and such instructions or orders must be subservient to the statutory rules, the Bombay High Court ruled while quashing a decision to shut down three Ashram Shalas.

"The Government cannot supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions. Still, if the rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill the gaps by framing Rules and issuing instructions not inconsistent with the already-framed rules."

66. Disallowance Can't Be Made On Failure Of Assessee To Deduct TDS If Employee's Commission Shown As Part Of Salary Income: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Indofil Industries Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 66

The division bench of Justice Amit B.Borkar and Justice K.R.Shriram ruled that section 192 of the said Act, unlike other TDS provisions, requires deduction of tax at source under the head "Salary only at the time of payment and not otherwise".

The issue raised was regarding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had noted that respondent/assessee had made a provision for commission for the Chairman and the Managing Director (CMD) of the Company at the year end but not deducted TDS under Section 194H Income Tax Act. The commission was paid to the CMD in the subsequent year, i.e., during the Assessment Year 2010-2011 after deducting TDS.

67. Courts Need Not Hold Up Arbitration At Pre-Appointment Stage Over Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vivek Mehta & Anr. v/s. KaRRs Designs & Developments & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 67

Bombay High court considered whether the arbitration should be held up at the pre-appointment stage and pre-reference stage or whether party should be left to follow the procedures post reference and be left to agitate their respective challenges.

"The ratio is clear viz. least interference at the pre-appointment stage."

68. Nominated Councillor Cannot Be Appointed As Leader Of The House : Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ravindra Hemraj Dhangekar V/S Ganesh Madhukar Bidkar & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 68

A division bench of Justices AA Sayed and SG Dige observed that under section 19-1A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (MMC Act) only an elected councillor, directly elected at Ward elections, is eligible to be appointed as 'Leader of the House.'

"If the intention of the Legislature was to treat both the categories of Councillors equally and to include even a nominated Councillor to be eligible to be appointed as Leader of the House under section 19-1A, the said section would have simply said 'Councillor' and not 'elected Councillor'."

69. Discretion Of Any Authority Cannot Be An Arbitrary Or Unregulated; To Be Exercised Fairly: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 69

The Bombay High Court recently considered the workings of the doctrine of pleasure, whereby authorities have a right to act as per their discretion. A bench of Justices S.V. Gangapurwala and S.G. Dige regarded that the doctrine of pleasure does not unable an authority to be arbitrary.

The petitioner was appointed as a part time Chairman of Aurangabad Housing and Development Board by the State Government under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, which was later cancelled. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner submitted that as per section 7 of the said Act, his term was for three years and that powers of the State Government to remove President, Vice-President or any non-official member from his office prior to the stipulated period of three years were not unfettered and the State Government, while exercising its powers, had to notify the reasons.

The bench observed that no reason had been set out by the State Government for removal of petitioner, when the admitted position was that his removal was on account of Doctrine of Pleasure.

70. Principal Had No Actual Control Over Children, Can't Be Prosecuted For Cruelty Under JJ Act If Teacher Beat Them Up: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Anurag s/o Jamnashankar Pandey Vs. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 70

The headmaster of a school cannot be prosecuted for cruelty under the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) for a teacher's actions merely because he heads the institution in the absence of specific allegations of assault, connivance or wilful neglect on his part, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench held.

Justice Avinash Gharote allowed the headmaster's writ petition and discharged him of offences under Section 75 of the JJ Act (punishment for cruelty to child).

The court rejected the prosecution's contention that the headmaster was liable because he was the head of the institution and thus had overall control over the children wherein a dance teacher had beaten a child with an iron rod during practice, causing injuries.

71. Bombay Asks Cab Aggregators Like Ola & Uber To Apply For Licenses Under New Motor Vehicle Rules By March 16

Case Title: Savina R Crasto vs Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 71

In a sign of accountability for all cab aggregators in Maharashtra like Uber India and Ola, the Bombay High Court directed them to apply for new licences from the State Government by March 16, 2022, based on rules framed by the Central Government under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

The Central Government's rules – Motor Vehicles Aggregators Guidelines 2020 – will be applicable till the State's rules come into effect based on a 2019 amendment to the MV Act.

"If rejected (application and appeal), such applying aggregator shall not be permitted to carry on further activities in the state of Maharashtra," a division bench led by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta observed.

72. Once Parties Acknowledge Existence Of Arbitration Clause, Court Can Appoint Arbitrator Even If Stamp Duty Is Insufficiently Paid: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pigments & Allieds Vs. Carboline (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 72

The Bombay High Court recently observed that once the parties have acknowledged that an arbitration clause was embodied in the substantive contract, insufficiency of stamps cannot prevent the court from disposing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrators.

Justice AK Menon observed, "Arbitration is seen as a speedy remedy but if applicants and respondents who may have counter-claims, have to await the fate of adjudication of documents for stamping and conclusion of the statutory challenge, the purpose of arbitration may be defeated. In my view, once parties are ad-idem on the fact that they have signed the writing containing an arbitration clause, the parties having acknowledged that an arbitration clause was embodied in the substantive contract, cannot prevent the court from disposing an application under Section 11 and the High Court, in my view, need not await the decision of the claimant in the case at hand as to whether or not to pay stamp-duty, as adjudicated. If this is not to be so, a large number of arbitration proceedings will be held up right at the inception, which is not desirable."

73. Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Against Movie 'The Kashmir Files'

Case Title: Intezar Hussain Sayed vs Zee Studios & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 73

The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking to stall the release of movie "The Kashmir Files" on the alleged grounds of hurting religious sentiments of the Muslim community and inflaming members of the Hindu Community with possibility of triggering communal violence. The film directed by Vivek Agnihotri features well-known actors like Anupam Kher and Mithun Chakraborty.

The bench led by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta noted that the Petitioner had not challenged the censor certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The rule of exhaustion of an efficacious alternative remedy applies also in a public interest litigation as it does in respect of a litigation initiated in private interest.

74. Bombay High Court Holds Tata Motors Liable For Unfair Labour Practices, Directs To Compensate 52 Employees

Case Title: Shankar Bhimrao Kadam & Ors vs Tata Motors Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 74

In a dispute that spanned over 17 years, the Bombay High Court held Tata Motors liable for unfair labour practices under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for hiring hundreds of workmen in its manufacturing unit as temporaries to deprive them of the status and privilege of permanent workmen.

Justice Ravindra Ghuge directed the automobile major to pay compensation to the 52 petitioners and set aside the Labour Court's orders. The bench observed that the company had a monitoring department to ensure temporary workers were disengaged before they completed the mandatory days of continuous employment.

"I find that the respondent-management has systematically prevented these temporaries from completing 240 days in continuous employment and had foisted involuntary unemployment on these temporaries before they could complete 240 days only to paint an imperfect picture that the work had come to an end and, therefore, these temporaries were disengaged by efflux of time, which is an exception to retrenchment u/s 2(oo) (bb)," the bench observed.

75. Order XXVI Rule 13 & 14 CPC | Can't Lay Down Hard & Fast Rules For Partition Of Joint Family Properties: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Basant Singh and Ors. v. Autar Kaur and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 75

The Bombay High Court reiterated that the supervisory, discretionary powers conferred upon it under Article 227 of the Constitution is to ensure proper administration of justice and the same cannot be exercised merely to correct an error on facts.

"The powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution are wide and the main object of it is to keep strict administration and judicial control on the administration of justice. Just because a party seeks to challenge an order of a subordinate Court merely due to some insignificant errors on facts, the discretionary powers cannot be exercised, " Justice Prithiviraj K Chavan observed.

The observation was made while dealing with a petition under Article 227, challenging the order of a single judge which had rejected the report submitted by the Court Commissioner in a case relating to partition of suit property.

76. Unfortunate That In Maharashtra, Two Highest Constitutional Functionaries Don't Trust Each Other: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Janak Vyas vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 76

The Bombay High Court expressed anguish that two highest constitutional functionaries in Maharashtra, the Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari "do not trust each other."

"The unfortunate part in Maharashtra is this that two highest Constitutional functionaries do not trust each other. You both please sit together and sort this out between yourselves. Here, the Governor and the Chief Minister, we all think, are not on the same page. But who is suffering in all of this?"

The bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik was referring to the Governor's inaction on the nomination of 12 members to the Maharashtra Legislative Council over eight months after the High Court's judgement.

Two PILs challenged certain amendments to the procedure for election of the speaker in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. The court lambasted the petitioners before dismissing petitions.

77. Excavation Of Ordinary Earth For Construction Of Building Purposes Would Not Attract Levy Of Royalty And Penalty Under The Provisions Of The MLR Code, 1966: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Royale Urbanspace and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 77

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav, noted that the Supreme Court had enunciated in clear and unambiguous terms that excavation of ordinary earth for construction of building purposes/development would not attract levy of royalty and penalty under the provisions of Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ("MLR Code, 1966"), especially when the excavated earth has been used for levelling and development on the same plot.

The Petitioners challenged two show cause notices, both dated 29.01.2021, hearing notice dated 30.06.2021, two final notices, both dated 23.08.2021 issued by the Tahasildar, Shahapur, demanding payment of royalty and penalty of Rs.1,07,12,000/- and Rs. 5,71,35,104/- and order dated 21.10.2021 calling upon the Petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.1,09,18,000/- under the provisions of Section 48(7) of the MLR Code, 1966. The Respondent No.2 has issued the impugned notices and passed the impugned order against the Petitioners for extraction of minor minerals unauthorisedly.

78. Social Worker Not Exempt From Exceptions U/S 8 RTI Act, Must Demonstrate Bona Fides In Larger Public Interest: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rajendra Goyal alias Raju Goyal vs PIO and connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 78

Claims of being a "social activist" are not enough to get information under the RTI Act, the application must show details sought are bona fide in larger public interest, and without causing "unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual" under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the Bombay High Court has held.

"The logic seems to be this: since Goyal (appellant) is a self-proclaimed activist, the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act will not apply to him. That is unacceptable," the court said.

A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar, in a judgement on March 3, observed that all that the petition filed by one Rajendra Goyal seeking implementation of the State Information Commissioner's order said was that Goyal was a "social activist." The bench, however, found that one of the paragraphs somewhere inside revealed that he was a developer – in the real estate business.

79. Bombay High Court Upholds Single Judge Order Permitting 'Phone Pe' To File Fresh Trademark Suit Claiming Exclusivity On 'Pe' Suffix

Case Title: Resilient Innovations Private Ltd. vs Phonepe Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 79

The Bombay High Court has allowed PhonePe to file a fresh suit claiming trademark infringement against Resilient Innovations, the owners of PostPe.

Earlier a single judge of the High Court had granted leave to PhonePe to withdraw its suit and file a fresh one, which was challenged before a division bench, which has refused to interfere with the single judge's order.

A division bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav, on Friday, dismissed as not maintainable an appeal by Resilient Innovations, which owns the rival brand PostPe. The court, however, refrained from making observations on the merits of the case.

80. Holding Company Not Liable To Deduct TDS On The Share Purchase Transaction By Its Subsidiary: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ingram Micro INC. vs The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 80

The Bombay High Court held that even if a holding company was considered as an ultimate beneficiary of a share purchase transaction undertaken by its subsidiary company, it would still not be liable to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if it did not make any payment to a non-resident under the transaction.

The bench, consisting of Justices KR Shriram and NJ Jamadar, ruled that the liability to deduct TDS under Section 195 of the Act is applicable only to a person who has paid any sum, or is responsible for paying any sum, to a non-resident.

The High Court observed that the conclusions drawn by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding Ingram Micro Inc.'s liability to deduct TDS by placing reliance on the Annual Reports of the Ingram Group, which had mentioned the factum of Ingram Group's acquisition of Techpac Holdings, was misplaced. The High Court held that the comments mentioned in the said Annual Reports were with respect to the Ingram Group as a whole and were not restricted to the activity of the petitioner Ingram Micro Inc.

81. Reply Of The Taxpayer Not Considered: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Faceless Assessment

Case Title: Pankaj s/o Roshan Dhawan Versus National e-Assessment Centre

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 81

Case No.: WP 1927/2021

The Bombay High Court bench quashed an income tax faceless assessment as the taxpayer's reply was not considered by the department/respondent.

The IT department has launched the Faceless Facility for income tax appeals. Under the facility, all the cases will be completed in a faceless way in a faceless environment, except for appeals that are related to evasion of tax, serious fraud, black money, international tax, and special research.

82. Claiming that a property is untainted would amount to an offence under section 3 of the PMLA 2002 – Bombay HC in Nawab Malik

Case Title: Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik vs The Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 82

Case No: WP 648/ 2022

In its order refusing interim release of Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik, the Bombay High Court observed that prima facie claiming that a property is untainted would amount to an offence under section 3 of the PMLA 2002.

The court denied Malik interim release in his habeas corpus plea challenging PMLA proceedings. The crux of Nawab Malik's counsel's arguments was on the retrospective applicability of PMLA since ED had used the amended provision of section 3 of PMLA from 2013 and an explanation is inserted in the year 2019, for the transaction of the year 2003 and 2005.

However, the bench observed that a perusal of the unamended provisions of Section 3 mention "process or activity connected with proceeds of crime" as one of the ingredients. It's a wider term and its constitutional validity is not challenged. "What we prima facie feel that projection/claiming a property as untainted property is the objectionable act forming part of an offence under Section 3 of the Act of 2002."

83. NEET-UG | Students Domiciled In Maharashtra But Passing 10th/ 12th Standard From Outside Not Eligible To Avail State Quota: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rachna Sanjay Kuwar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 83

The Bombay High Court held that a medical aspirant domiciled in Maharashtra, but having passed 10th or 12th standard from outside the state shall not be eligible to avail the benefit under State quota for the purpose of NEET-UF examination.

"The Rule applicable since 2018 and followed consistently is that (i) the student should pass 10th and 12th standard from an institution situated within the State of Maharashtra and (ii) must be domicile of State of Maharashtra. Exception is if he has cleared 10th standard prior to the year 2017 from an institution outside the State of Maharashtra, he would still be eligible, provided he has passed 12th standard examination from an institution situated within the State of Maharashtra and he is also domicile of the Maharashtra," the Court said.

84. Reassessment Notice Issued Within 5 Hours Of Receiving Information, Bombay High Court Says Nothing Wrong, If There Is Application Of Mind

Case Title: Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs ITO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 84

Case No.: WP 3597/ 2019

The Bombay High Court bench upheld the validity of the reassessment notice issued within 5 hours of receiving information against Maharashtra Minister, Chhagan Chandrakant.

The court observed that the power vested in the commissioner under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act to grant or not to grant approval to the Assessing Officer to re-open an assessment is coupled with duty, and the commissioner is duty bound to apply his mind to the proposal put up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Such power cannot be exercised casually, in a routine and perfunctory manner.

85. Caste Scrutiny Committee Cannot Review Its Own Decision Except In Cases Of Fraud Or Misrepresentation – Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vishnu Rajaram Thakar Vs. State of Maharashtra,Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 85

Holding that a Caste Scrutiny Committee can review its own decision only in exceptional cases when there is any playing of fraud or suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, the Bombay High Court set aside a show cause notice by the Committee seeking to review it earlier orders.

A division bench said that a quasi-judicial authority did not have statutory power to review its own decision, but judicial pronouncements, while giving the power to the Committee to review its orders in exceptional cases in the past had held, "The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants.

86. No General Application For Directions Barring Media Reporting Of POSH Cases : Bombay High Court Clarifies

Case Title: Forum Against Oppression of Women in P vs A & Ors

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 86

Case No: Suit 142/ 2021

Over five months after the Bombay High Court issued certain guidelines, including barring media reporting and uploading of judgements in POSH cases, to maintain anonymity of parties, the bench clarified that its directions were 'case specific' not applicable to all matters under the Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act 2013 and Rules.

As per the September 24 directions, disclosing identity of the victim, accused or witness in a POSH case is prohibited, all such court hearing must be in-camera in the judge's chamber. Moreover, none of the parties were permitted to disclose anything about the case, including its final outcome; judgements not to be uploaded on the website and no media reporting without prior permission of the court.

"The directions had to be confined to this particular case," Justice Patel said in the latest order.

87. Central Govt's Permission Not Necessary For Development Once Collector Opines Land 'Not A Forest': Bombay HC

Case Title: Sankalp Resorts Limited & ors vs State of Maharashtra and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 87

Once the Collector (even in a draft speaking order) opines that a privately owned land parcel is not a "private forest," the Central Government's permission under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is unnecessary to exploit the land for development, the Bombay High Court held.

A division bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav observed that the Central Act would apply only when a forest land is to be used for non-forest purposes, like when a project is to be set up on the forest land, and particulars of the proposed project are to be set out.

88. 'Patent Illegality' : Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Which Favoured BCCI In IPL Telecast Rights Dispute

Case Title :World Sport Group (India) Private Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 88

Observing that the arbitral award of three former Supreme Court judges by 2:1 majority missed out on "huge chunks of important evidence or not even referred to it," the Bombay High Court set aside the award in favour of the Board of Control for Cricket (BCCI) in India. The court passed the order on a challenge to the award by World Sport Group (India) Private Ltd.

The court observed that while challenge to an arbitral award was not equivalent to an appeal, one of the grounds to challenge a domestic arbitral award, even after the amendment of the Act in 2015, was that it suffered from a patent illegality.

"The Supreme Court has clearly held that a decision of the Tribunal which is perverse, while no longer being a ground of challenge under the "public policy of India", would certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of the Award. The Supreme Court has inter alia held that a finding in the Award based on no evidence or an Award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision, would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality," Justice Colabawalla observed in his March 16, 2022 judgement.

89. Son Can't Claim Right Or Share In Parents' Flats While They Are Alive : Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 89

A son doesn't have any right, title or settled and enforceable share in his parent's flats till they are alive, the Bombay High Court has observed.

A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar rejected the son's suggestion that he has a settled and enforceable share in either of the flats in the lifetime of the real owners, his parents, as being "laughable." "The fact that he is their son does not make either of their flats 'a shared household", the bench said.

90. Adopted Son Entitled To Take Adoptive Mother's Caste Even If Biological Father's Records Not Available: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Dr. Sonal Pratapsingh Vahanwala v. Deputy District Collector, Dharavi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 90

Observing that an adopted child becomes a family member of his adoptive parents "in all respects," the Bombay High Court directed authorities to issue a caste certificate to an 18-year-old based on his mother's scheduled caste identity.

The Bench thus held that an adopted child would be entitled to take the caste identity of his adoptive mother, despite the caste authorities' insistence on making the child's biological father's records available.

"One of the effects would be that the child would not get identity of mother and particularly caste of the mother. He would be without identity throughout his life. Similarly, very purpose of adopting child by the petitioner being a single mother would stand frustrated. In our opinion, such a situation could not be envisaged by law."

91. JJ Act | Child Cannot Be Automatically Tried As An Adult Even If It Commits Heinous Crime: Bombay High Court

Case Title : The State of Maharashtra v Shadab Tabarak Khan

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 91

A single judge of the HC, held that under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 the Juvenile Justice Board has to assess a heinous offence to determine whether CCL is to be tried as an adult or juvenile.

If the child above 16 years of age, the Board has to conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, before deciding if the CCL can be tried as an adult.

92. "Greed, Acrimony & Deceit": Bombay HC Dismisses Contempt Plea Of Man Who Prima Facie Played Fraud On Supreme Court & High Court For Property

Case Title: Manojkumar Omprakash Dalmia vs Omprakash Dalmia and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 92

Observing that "greed, acrimony and deceit" are clear from the son's conduct, the Bombay High Court dismissed the contempt petition he filed against his parents in connection with a property dispute and directed him pay them cost of Rs. 50,000.

The petitioner son -Manoj Kumar Dalmia- alleged non-compliance of consent terms he allegedly signed with his parents, giving him more than his share in the couple's Santacruz flat, while also permitting his family to reside there. He would also get their second flat, which was their only source of livelihood.

There was no reason whatsoever for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (parents) to ordinarily enter into the Consent Terms which basically seek to undo what they had been able to preserve thus far, by securing orders from this Court and the Supreme Court," a division bench noted about the "lopsided" terms.

93. Short Term Permit For Extraction Of Minor Minerals Can Be Granted On Application Made To Competent Authority, Public Auction Not Required: Bombay HC

Case Title : Shrikrupa Stone Crusher v State of Maharashtra and ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 93

The Bombay High Court considered whether grant of short term permit for extraction of minor minerals under Rule 59 of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 (the Rules of 2013) ought to be preceded by holding public auction or whether such short term permit can be granted on the basis of an application made to the Competent Authority.

"it was not the intention of the State that short term permit for minor minerals should be granted by way of public auction. The mode of granting such permit on an application made has been retained."

94. "Shareholder cannot be restrained from calling a meeting" - Bombay High Court Sets Aside Interim Order In Favour Zee Entertainment In Battle With Invesco

Case Title: Invesco Developing Markets Fund vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 94

A division bench of the Bombay High Court allowed an application filed by US investment firm Invesco Developing Markets Fund, the largest shareholder of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (Zee), against a single judge's order granting interim injunction to Zee and restraining the investor from holding an Extraordinary General Body Meeting.

1.The bench relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in LIC vs. Escorts wherein the SC held that a shareholder cannot be restrained from calling a meeting, such shareholder need not disclose reasons for the resolutions proposed and that the reasons for the resolution are not subject to judicial review.

2.That civil court's jurisdiction to entertain the Suit is in the teeth of Section 430 of the Act matters that fall within the domain of the NCLT.

3.Bench dealt with the consequences of ruling that a Civil Court can, in certain cases, grant an injunction restraining shareholders of a company from exercising their statutory right to call for and hold an EGM. "If we were to open this flood gate, Corporate democracy, as we understand it, would be rendered nugatory. Shareholders will be repeatedly restrained and injuncted from exercising their statutory rights…We cannot lay down a precedent resulting in such drastic consequences derailing the democratic functioning of Companies across India owing to the non-cooperative and obstructive conduct of the Board of Directors."

95. Bank Entitled To Proceed U/S 13 SARFAESI Act Notwithstanding That Debt Portfolio Was Assigned To It By NBFC: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Poorti Rent a Car and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & ors. vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & ors.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 95

The Bombay High Court held that a Bank, being a "secured creditor" within the meaning of section 2(zd) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), is entitled to initiate proceedings against a debtor under Section 13 thereof, notwithstanding the fact that the assignor of debt portfolio was not a "financial institution" at the material time.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik concluded that,

"initiation of action under Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act by the respondent no.1, being a "secured creditor" within the meaning of section 2(zd) thereof for the purpose of enforcing the security interest that was created earlier, is legally permissible. That the respondent no. 1 is the successor-in-interest of the respondent no.2, which was not a "financial institution" at the material time would make no difference insofar as consequence in law is concerned."

96. On Last Day As Bombay HC Judge, Justice SJ Kathawalla Orders ₹10 Crore Interim Compensation For 953 Fisherfolk Families Affected By Infra Project

Case Title: Mariyayi Machhimaar Sahkari Sansthya Maryadit Versus Department of Fisheries and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 96

A bench led by Justice Shahrukh Kathawalla directed disbursal of ad-hoc compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to each of the 953 fisherfolk families being affected by an infrastructure project in Thane.

"As the fisherfolk and their families cannot be expected to starve till the authorities decide the quantum of compensation…" the bench observed in their order.

The court noted that the State's Draft Compensation Policy dated November 29, 2021, adopts the approach of the National Green Tribunal. According to the NGT's calculation in the matter of Ramdas Janardan Kohli on February 27, 2015, compensation for one family was pegged at Rs. 6 lakh for three years.

97. Shareholders Of RCFL Permitted To Carry Out A Voting Process Based On Debenture Trust Deeds In Compliance With RBI Circular: Bombay High Court Dismisses SEBI's Appeal

Case Title: Securities and Exchange Board of India Versus Rajkumar Nagpal & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 97

The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and permitted the shareholders of Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd. (RCFL) to carry out a voting process based on debenture trust deeds (DTDs) in compliance with the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

The court noted that the SEBI Circular stated that it would take effect immediately on October 13, 2020.In the present case, RCFL committed defaults prior to October 13, 2020, and the ICA was executed on July 6, 2019, which are dates prior to the coming into force of the SEBI Circular and prior to the Supplementary DTD incorporating reference to the SEBI Circular.

98. Remuneration From Partnership Not 'Gross Receipt' For Purpose Of Audit Under Section 44AB Of Income Tax Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Perizad Zorabian Irani Versus PCIT And Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 98

The Bombay High Court ruled that remuneration received from partnership firm cannot be treated as gross receipt in profession for the purpose of compulsory audit under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Bench held that that none of the clauses under Section 44AB envisage the situation where an assessee is carrying on both profession as well as business.

99. SARFAESI - Borrower Has No Right Of Hearing Before Magistrate Allows Possession Of Assets Under Section 14 : Bombay High Court

Case Title: CA. Manisha Mehta and ors. Vs The Board of Directors of Represented by its Managing Director of ICICI Bank and ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 99

The Bombay High Court has refused to read principles of natural justice into Section 14 of the SARFESI Act and direct magistrates to put a borrower to notice before taking possession of the asset for the bank or financial institution.

"Only a post-possession right to approach the tribunal is conferred on a borrower in terms of section 17, nothing more and nothing less," the bench observed.

The court observed that principles of natural justice under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFESI Act), are available to a borrower only to a limited extent and not till the secured creditor takes possession of the asset after serving a notice to the borrower and responding to it.

100. Bombay High Court Grants Interim Protection In Intellectual Property To RPG Enterprises Ltd. On Grounds Of Being Deceptively Similar Leading To Passing-Off

Case Title: RPG Enterprises Limited v Riju Ghoshal and anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 100

The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to RPG Enterprises Ltd, named after its founder, Mr. Rama Prasad Goenka, a known industrialist. Considering the factors such as (i) the extent of knowledge of the RPG mark, and its recognition by the relevant public; (ii) the duration of the use of the RPG marks; (iii) the extent of the products in relation to which the RPG mark is being used; (iv) the extent and duration of advertising and promotion of the RPG mark; (v) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the RPG mark is used…I am of the opinion that prima facie, the Plaintiff's RPG mark deserves protection as a well-known trade mark as the same has come to acquire a secondary meaning to connote to the public the goods and / or services emanating from the Plaintiff."

101. Does Minor's Severance From Hindu Undivided Family Take Place On Mere Filing Of Partition Suit Which Got Dismissed For Default? Bombay High Court To Examine

Case Title: Hriday Niraj Mehta vs. Umesh Jayantilal Mehta and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 101

The Bombay High Court is set to decide a complex position in law – will mere filing of a Partition Suit by a minor family member amount to severing of ties from a Hindu Undivided Family even if the Suit is eventually dismissed for non-prosecution while the plaintiff was still a minor, or should that minor be considered a part of HUF.

The question has come up in a case where the concerned minor, after attaining majority in March 2020, has now challenged a gift deed executed by his parents as a part of HUF while he was a minor, but, had sought partition of the property under the HUF. The property was eventually sold by another close relative who purportedly received it as a gift and a third party is in possession of the house in an eastern suburb of Mumbai.

102. Bombay High Court Rejects Plea To Stay OTT Release of Movie 83 On Hotstar & Netflix

Case Title: Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 102

Observing that prima facie - Netflix Global LLC and Star India have antecedent (prior) rights to exploit the film '83' on satellite and digital media for 10 years, the Bombay High Court refused ad-interim relief to Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt Ltd to stall the film's OTT release.

The bench observed that Netflix and Star were not part of the consent terms, therefore its clauses couldn't be enforced against them. Moreover, Madman cannot seek injunction when the said rights have been acknowledged in the same document (Consent Terms) which granted Madman the rights qua the Film.

103. Son Can't Claim Right Or Share In Parents' Flats While They Are Alive : Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 103

A son doesn't have any right, title or settled and enforceable share in his parent's flats till they are alive, the Bombay High Court has observed.

A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar rejected the son's suggestion that he has a settled and enforceable share in either of the flats in the lifetime of the real owners, his parents, as being "laughable." "The fact that he is their son does not make either of their flats 'a shared household", the bench said.

"Asif(Son) can have no right, title or interest whatsoever in either of these flats — one in his father's name and other in his mother's name — so long as his parents are alive. The suggestion that Asif has a settled and enforceable share in either of the flats in the lifetimes of the real owners, his parents, is laughable."

104. Yes Bank Fraud Case: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Avantha Group Promoter Gautam Thapar

Case Title: Gautam Thapar v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 104

Bombay High Court granted bail to Avantha Group promoter Gautam Thapar accused in a case being investigated by the CBI regarding his alleged involvement in a loan fraud against Yes bank.

The court relied on the clarificatory decision of the Supreme Court in its order dated December, 16 2021 that " if during the course of investigation, there has been no cause to arrest the accused, merely because a charge sheet is filed, would not be an ipso facto cause to arrest the petitioner, an aspect in general clarified by us in Criminal Appeal No.838/2021 in Siddharth v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr."

105. 'Petitioner Has Reached Dot Age': Bombay HC Directs Trial Court To Complete Nonagenarian's Cross-Examination Despite Respondent's Transfer Plea

Case Title: Trilok Singh Gandhi vs Rajendra Kaushalraj Mehta

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 105

Giving precedence to the ripe age of a litigant, the Bombay High Court directed Small Causes Court to conclude a 92-year old's cross-examination in a dispute under the Rent Control Act, irrespective of a transfer application filed by the other side pending before the Principal Judge of that court.

Keeping in mind the age of petitioner Trilok Singh Gandhi, the court directed that his cross-examination be completed within two months of receipt of the order and directed the respondent to cooperate with the trial.

106. Right To Withdraw Notice Of Voluntary Retirement Before Intended Date Lost By Accepting Post-Retiral Benefits: Bombay High Court

Case Title : Sadiq Shafi Qureshi v M.D. and C.E.O.,Union Bank of India and ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 106

The High Court held that an employee who is entitled under the applicable laws to withdraw his offer of voluntary retirement before the intended date of such voluntary retirement, loses his right to do so by accepting the retirement benefits.

"We find that the petitioner's conduct of receiving various service benefits from 14.09.2017 disentitle him to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service as prayed by him."

107. Threshold Of 'Public Interest' Must To Prevent Bypassing Of Civil Courts For Enforcement Of Contractual Obligations: Bombay High Court

Case Title :M/s. V.N.Reddy v The Superintending Engineer and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 107

The Bombay High Court reiterated that a writ court should not ordinarily exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in contractual matters, unless the same is expedient in public interest.

The bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and G.A. Sanap took note of the Supreme Court's observations in Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others vs. AMR Dev Prabha and others, that the power of judicial review should not be permitted to be invoked in contractual disputes to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes.

It observed, "although the threshold for the public interest to exist need not be high nevertheless it is essential to prevent bypassing of civil Courts and use of constitutional avenues for enforcement of contractual obligations."

108. Can Exercise Writ Jurisdiction Against Private Party That Wrongly Benefits From Inaction Of Public Authorities In Discharge Of Public Duty: Bombay HC

Case Title: Sabhajit Ramyash Yadav and ors v State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 108

The Bombay High court recently came to the rescue of flat purchasers and allowed interim reliefs against private developers in writ petitions. A bench of Justices S.J. Kathawalla and Milind N. Jadhav regarded that inaction of government bodies against private developers is affecting the rights of innocent individuals. Hence, the court can exercise writ jurisdiction to protect their interests.

109. 'Courts Exist For Convenience Of Litigants, Not Advocates': Bombay HC Rejects Bar Association's Plea Against Establishment Of Court At Wai

Case Title :Satara District Bar Association, Satara v State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 109

The High Court rejected a writ petition filed by Satara District Bar Association, opposing its decision to establish the Court of an Additional District Judge and the Court of a Civil Judge in Maharashtra's Wai town. The Association had stated that the decision would put Judicial officers, staff and litigants to great difficulty.

"The real difficulty with this Petition is that it is unclear what is the legal right that the Petitioner is asserting when it says that this High Court should not consider establishing a Court at Wai. It seems to us that this is entirely self-serving...We do not deny that the Bar has a role to play in the administration of justice. We however emphatically assert that it is the interest of the litigants that is paramount and the role of the Court and all those who enable its functioning, whether Judges or lawyers, are meant to assist the delivery of justice to the litigant."

110. Bombay High Court Lashes Out At Hoteliers For Seeking Reduction Of Liquor License Fees Citing COVID; Dismisses Plea With One Lakh Each Cost

Case Title: Hotel & Restaurant Association (Western India) and Ors. v. Commissioner, State Excise and Ors. with connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 110

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a bunch of petitions seeking concessions on license renewal fees for vending foreign liquor calling them "at best, worthless from start to finish and, at worst, thoroughly irresponsible."

The court called the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners as that of "mind-numbing insensitivity" as the foreign liquor vending hotels "put themselves on the same level as the true victims who fell to the onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic."

"We believe it is time to send a firm signal that the time of the court is not to be taken for granted, nor should there be any attempt to gamble on litigation. When a court's time is squandered on frivolous matters, there will be consequences," the bench observed.

111. Compassionate Appointment Exception To Rule Of Selection Procedure: Bombay High Court Grants Relief To Widow

Case Title : Smt. Varsha Deepak Desale v The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 111

The High Court came to the rescue of a widow, who was denied compassionate appointment by the Education Department in place of her deceased husband who was working as a Peon in an educational premises.

She was denied the benefit on the ground that the proposal seeking sanction to the new staffing pattern is pending with the Government. "There is no necessity to have sanction to the new staffing pattern for appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed."