Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 216 – 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 435:Reception Held In Mumbai Not Part Of Marriage Ritual: High Court Declines Mumbai Family Court's Jurisdiction Over Husband's Divorce PleaCase Title: Shikha Lodha v. Suketu Shah and Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 216Observing that reception can't be considered part of the marriage ritual, the Bombay High Court held that the family...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 216 – 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 435:
Reception Held In Mumbai Not Part Of Marriage Ritual: High Court Declines Mumbai Family Court's Jurisdiction Over Husband's Divorce Plea
Case Title: Shikha Lodha v. Suketu Shah and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 216
Observing that reception can't be considered part of the marriage ritual, the Bombay High Court held that the family court in Mumbai had no jurisdiction over a divorce case just because the couple had the wedding reception in Mumbai and resided there for a few days.
Justice Rajesh S Patil allowed a woman's application challenging Family Court Mumbai's jurisdiction over her husband's divorce petition observing that the couple's actual last place of joint residence is in the US. “Sec.19(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, nowhere mentions “last residing together in India”. In my view such words “in India”, can't be read in the sub-section (iii) of 19”, the court observed.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 217
The Bombay High Court held that adultery is a ground for divorce but cannot be a ground for denying custody of a child.
Justice Rajesh Patil dismissed a writ petition filed by son of a former legislator seeking custody of his nine-year-old daughter from his estranged wife on grounds of adultery. “Adultery is in any case a ground for divorce, however the same can't be a ground for not granting custody”, the court observed.
Case Title: Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 218
The Bombay High Court held that the 2022 order of the Director General of Shipping for certification of accommodation barges does not apply to vessels which are not Indian ships registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, of 1858.
A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla temporarily stayed orders of the Directorate General of Shipping to detain three of the petitioner's non-self-propelled accommodation barges registered under the Coastal Vessels Act, of 1838.
Case Title: NP Enterprises v. General Manager, Western Railway
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 219
The High Court of Bombay held that appointment of arbitrator from a narrow panel of 4 arbitrators is violative of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. It held that such practice of preparing narrow panels restricts free choice and give rise to suspicion that favourites are chosen.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that independence and impartiality of arbitrators is a hallmark of arbitration and the rule against bias is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice, which is applicable with equal force in all quasi-judicial proceedings.
Case Title: Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 220
The Bombay High Court quashed a criminal case against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray for alleged abetment of violence and public property damage arising out of a stone pelting incident in 2008.
Justice Nitin B Suryawanshi of the Aurangabad bench set aside lower court orders refusing to discharge Thackeray in a case involving MNS supporters allegedly attacking a state transport (ST) bus during a protest demanding his release from custody.
“In absence of any material on record to show instigation on the part of petitioner in the present crime, charge against petitioner is groundless and Trial Court as well as Sessions Court have failed to appreciate this vital aspect and have erred in rejecting prayer of petitioner for discharge. The impugned orders are therefore unsustainable in law and facts of the case”, the court held.
Case Title: Telex Advertising Pvt Ltd v. Central Railway
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 221
The High Court of Bombay held that the power of General Manager of the employer to confirm nomination of arbitrator by the Contractor runs contrary to principles of impartiality and independence. It held that nomination by a party of its arbitrator cannot be subject to approval by the other party.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that for an appointment of arbitrator from a panel unilaterally prepared by a party, it must be broad and diverse to allow free choice to the other party and any deviation would be hit by Section 12(5) of the Act.
Case Title: Glencore India Pvt Ltd v. Amma Lines Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 222
The High Court of Bombay held that an arbitrator's mandate would not terminate when the proceedings are not completed within timelines agreed by the parties, if the delays in the conduct of the proceedings are attributable to the party seeking termination of the mandate.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that generally, in an arbitration not governed by Section 29A, the arbitrator's mandate expires upon its failure to conclude the proceedings within the time period agreed by the parties, however, it would not hold true when the tribunal acted expeditiously and the delays in proceedings were on account of fault of the parties themselves.
Case Title: Mahendra Bansilal Patil v. Commissioner of Transport & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 223
The Bombay High Court quashed the State government's circular providing additional conditions for registration of vehicles belonging to government employees under the “BH series”.
A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla allowed a writ petition filed by Civil Judge Mahendra Bansilal Patil challenging the Commissioner of Transport's refusal to register his newly purchased motor vehicle under the 'BH series'.
Case Title: PCIT v. Tata Steel
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 224
The Bombay High Court held that Tata Steel is entitled to treat the contribution of Rs. 212.52 crores to the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) as revenue expenditure.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dr. Prafulla R. Hede, and another has accepted that a contribution to CAF will be revenue expenditure and not capital in nature.
Case Title: Sham v. Walve
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 225
The Bombay High Court held that the error on the part of the auditor cannot be rejected but should be accepted as a reasonable cause shown by the trust management.
The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that an assessee, a public charitable trust with almost over thirty years, which otherwise satisfies the condition for availing exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation, especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned.
Case Title: Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak v. Registrar General, Bombay High Court and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 226
The Bombay High Court upheld state government's order removing civil judge Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak from judicial service due to unilateral adjournment of cases, failure to follow court timings and arriving under the influence of alcohol.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar & Justice Jitendra Jain observed –
“It is a universally accepted norm that Judges and Judicial Officers must act with dignity and must not indulge in a conduct or behaviour which is likely to affect the image of judiciary or which unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. If the Members of the judiciary indulge in a behaviour which is blameworthy or which is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, the Writ Courts are not expected to intervene and grant relief to such a Judicial Officer.”
The court dismissed Pathak's writ petition challenging an order dated January 14, issued by the Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mumbai, which directed Pathak's removal from service.
Case Title: Indus Towers Limited v. Rajendra Patil (Yedravkar) and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 227
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Amit Borkar held that for the proceedings under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, the relationship between employer-employee should be undisputed. The court held that in absence of such a relationship, the labour court or the industrial court doesn't have any jurisdiction to deal with the matter falling under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.
Case Title: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Dattatraya Ganpat Bankhele
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 228
The High Court of Bombay single bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that lengthy periods of absence from duty without proper leave documentation are unjustified, regardless of the plausibility of the reason behind the absence.
The High Court acknowledged that the Labour Court's decision of reinstatement of the absent employee with 25% back wages could not be reversed as the employer failed to challenge it. However, the Industrial Court was unjustified to increase the back wages to 100%, in the absence of concrete reasons.
Abandonment Of Service Needs To Be Established By Conduction Of Enquiry: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Bhushan Industries v. Lohasingh Ramavadh Yadav
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 229
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Bhushan Industries vs Lohasingh Ramavadh Yadav held that abandonment of service is a question of fact that needs to be established by conduction of an enquiry.
If the Petitioner actually believed that the Respondent has abandoned his services, at least a show cause notice ought to have been issued to the Respondent. Since correspondence was on going between the Petitioner and the Respondent, it was possible for the Petitioner to conduct an enquiry accusing the Respondent of absconding from his duties, the court observed.
Case Title: Taher Fakhruddin Saheb v. Mufaddal Burhanuddin Saifuddin
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 230
The Bombay High Court observed that Taher Fakhruddin, challenger to his uncle Mufaddal Saiffuddin's position as the Dai al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohra community, accepted vague indications for his own nass, but dismissed concrete evidence for the nass conferred on Syedna Saifuddin.
The court found it “least plausible” that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, the 52nd Dai, immediately thought of appointing his successor upon assuming office in 1965 at 51 years of age, as claimed by Fakhruddin.
Case Title: Nilesh Chandrakant Kamble v. MMRDA Govt of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 231
The Bombay High Court observed that permitting contractors to file PILs challenging tender conditions is a sheer abuse of process of the court, and “pollutes purity of the stream of PIL”.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor dismissed a PIL by a contractor against a tender issued by Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner.
“However, permitting a contractor to file a PIL petition challenging the conditions of a tender, in our opinion, is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of Court and an effort to pollute the purity of the stream of public interest litigation. The petitioner has himself stated in the petition that he is engaged in the similar business as mentioned in the subject tender. Accordingly, this petition cannot be permitted to be entertained as a PIL petition.”
Case Title: XYZ v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
The Bombay High Court ordered the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon to personally look into an investigation into a rape case after noting that the investigating officer (IO) may have some ulterior intentions considering his unresponsiveness.
A division bench of Justice Mangesh S Patil and Justice Shailesh P Brahme noted that despite promptly reporting to the police, the offence under Section 376 was added later in the FIR for reasons best known to the IO. The court noted a "sordid state of affairs," observing that despite a strong motive, medical evidence, and witness statements consistent with the allegations in the FIR, the prosecutor did not have instructions on how to proceed.
Case Title: Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 233
The Bombay High Court observed that Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) against loan defaulters at the behest of public sector banks (PSBs) are strong-arm tactics to circumvent legal processes and violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
“The LOCs boil down to nothing but a strong-arm tactic to bypass or leapfrog what PSBs clearly see as inconveniences and irritants — the courts of law”, the court said.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Madhav J Jamdar struck down the LOCs as well as the provisions of governing Office Memoranda (OMs) that empowered PSBs to seek LOCs against loan defaulters. The court held that the right to travel abroad, part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed by an executive action without any governing statute or controlling statutory provision.
Ensure Effective Implementation Of Law Against Manual Scavenging: Bombay High Court To State
Case Title: Shramik Janata Sangh and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 234
The Bombay High Court called for information from the Municipal Corporations of Greater Mumbai, Thane, Kalyan-Dombivali, and Mira-Bhayander on steps taken for effective implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice MM Sathaye observed - “The first step that needs to be taken to address the wider issue, is to ensure that the statutory authorities constituted under the Act of 2013 are established and are functional and have the requisite manpower and necessary administrative setup.”
Case Title: Balaji Mines And Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 235
The Bombay High Court held that the reasons for reopening clearly show that the assessing officer, except borrowing the information from the third report of the Justice M.B. Shah Commission, failed to record independently to his own satisfaction any reason so as to direct the reopening of the assessment.
The bench of Justice Bharat P. Deshpande and Justice Valmiki Menezes did not see any reason for independently forming opinions by the Assessing Officer, apart from what was borrowed from the Justice M.B. Shah Commission report. Thus, reasons that do not have any application to the mind or any independent material or reason to believe cannot be construed as legal reasons for re-opening the assessment.
Case Title: Mehraj @ Meraj Kaddan Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 236
The Bombay High Court denied bail to a man accused of continuously sexually abusing a child over a period of nine years observing that his “horrible, appalling and obnoxious” crime caused so much trauma to the child that she has become a nymphomaniac.
In his order, Justice Prithviraj K Chavan reproduced verbatim 27 handwritten pages in the victim's notebook narrating repeated sexual abuse and threats by her neighbour from when she was an 8-year-old child studying in 4th standard till she attained the age of seventeen. The victim also described feeling shame, having attempted suicide, and getting addicted to sex and smoking to control lust as a result. The court observed that the victim had become habitual to sexual intercourse due to the trauma of the abuse by the accused.
Case Title: Balkrishna Barsha Sutar v. Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 237
The Bombay High Court held that the sanctioning authority has to be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) for issuing a reopening notice after the expiry of three years.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that, as per the order and the notice, the authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT-27, Mumbai. The matter pertains to Assessment Year 2017-2018, and since the order as well as the notice were issued on July 20, 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT, as provided under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The proviso to Section 151 has been inserted only with effect from April 1, 2023, and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand.
Case Title: Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd v. Shivkranti Kamgar Sanghatana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 238
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Amit Borkar held that employees predominantly engaged in manual, skilled, and unskilled work, in absence of sufficient evidence of direct oversight of subordinate employees, qualify as 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
The High Court noted that there were significant amendments in the ID Act in 1956 and 1982 that broadened the definition of "workman" to encompass supervisory and technical roles. It emphasized that the determination of an individual's status as a 'workman' hinges upon the actual duties performed, irrespective of designation or salary. It held that if the nature of duties predominantly aligns with any of the categories specified in Section 2(s) of the ID Act, the individual qualifies as a 'workman'.
Case Title: Pradeep Hiraman Kale v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 239
The Bombay High Court upheld the removal of a Judicial Officer accused of taking a bribe to acquit an accused under the POCSO Act observing that writ courts need not grant relief to a Judicial Officer whose conduct is likely to affect the image of the judiciary.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by one Pradeep Hiraman Kale challenging his removal.
“It is a universally accepted norm that Judges and Judicial Officers must act with dignity and must not indulge in a conduct or behaviour which is likely to affect the image of judiciary or which unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. If the Members of the judiciary indulge in a behaviour which is blameworthy or which is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, the Writ Courts are not expected to intervene and grant relief to such a Judicial Officer”, the court observed.
Case Title: Bhatewara Associates v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 240
The Bombay High Court, while setting aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), held that the authority should refrain from overanalyzing, which leads to paralysis of justice.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that the ITAT failed to appreciate the spirit in which the order dated August 23, 2022, was passed by the High Court condoning the delay by observing that the Income Tax Authority should consider the claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2011–12 made by the petitioner in accordance with law, as if there was no delay in filing the return.
Case Title: Navi Mumbai Hotel Owners Association and Anr. v. District Collector (State Excise) and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 241
Reiterating that the sale of liquor can be prohibited during elections only in polling areas, the Bombay High Court reduced the prohibition imposed in the entire Raigad district due to Lok Sabha elections in its two constituencies.
The ban will operate in Raigad constituency from May 5 to May 7 and in Maval constituency from May 11 to May 13.
Raigad District has two Lok Sabha constituencies – Raigad and Maval. While polling is to be held on two different dates in the two constituencies, i.e., May 7, 2024 and May 13, 2024 respectively, the order banned liquor sale in both the constituencies on both polling dates.
Finding this beyond the scope of Section 135-C of the Representation of People Act of 1951, the court partially modified the order.
The court held that the prohibition imposed by the impugned order extended beyond the limits specified in Section 135-C of the Act of 1951. While Section 142 of the Prohibition Act empowers the Collector to close places where intoxicants are sold, the court emphasized that this power must be exercised in conjunction with Section 135-C of the RP Act, particularly when the ban is being imposed only due to elections.
Case Title: Danfoss Systems Ltd v. Johnson Gomes
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 242
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Danfoss Systems Ltd vs Johnson Gomes has held that dismissal of service of a workman was disproportionate for an offence of overwriting the reason of absence on the Gatepass.
The court observed that the misconduct committed by the Workman was not so grave so as to impose penalty of dismissal from service. Even if any malafide intention is imputed on the Workman, the only objective which could be achieved by overwriting the Gatepass was to save one day's leave. Thus, the Workman did not commit forgery with the objective of gaining any pecuniary advantage from the Employer.
Case Title: Gaurav Bandu Patil v. State Of Maharashtra And Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 243
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a murder accused after he was not produced before the trial court on 70 occasions, despite notices from the trial court.
Justice SG Mehare of the Aurangabad bench observed that although the charges are serious, the non-production of the accused before the trial court entitled him to bail.
“Though the prosecution is opposing the application on the ground that the offence is serious, it has no explanation for his non-production of the accused before the Court for 70 dates. It is a sheer failure of the prosecution to produce the accused before the Court for framing the charge and progress of the trial”, the court observed.
Case Title: Aswini Jitendra Kable v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 244
The Bombay High Court stayed till further orders the exemption to private unaided schools from providing 25% quota in Class I or Pre-school for children of disadvantaged sections if there is a government-run or aided school within 1 km radius of that private school.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor prima facie found that the 2024 amendment to the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 is ultra vires the RTE Act, 2009.
“By the impugned provisos, the right of children to get free elementary education is being hampered which is otherwise guaranteed under Article 21A. Thus, having regard to the overwhelming public interest, we provide that till further orders the amendment incorporated in the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 shall remain stayed”, the court added.
Case Title: Naresh Goyal v. ED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 245
The Bombay High Court granted interim bail for two months to Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal in a money laundering case arising out of an alleged loan default of Rs. 538 Crores given to Jet Airways by Canara Bank.
Justice NJ Jamadar observed "The broad submission that since the applicant has got best of the treatment, he does not deserve to be released on bail, looses sight of the precious value of personal liberty. To accept such a broad proposition that once a person gets the requisite treatment, he does not deserve bail, howsoever critical his health condition may be, would defeat the legislative intent of enacting the proviso and render the proviso otiose".
Case Title: Purushottam Prabhakar Chavan v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (GST)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 246
The Bombay High Court held that lender bank registration with the Central Registry of Securitisation and Security Interest of India (CERSAI) has first priority over Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (GST) (DCST) against proceeds of enforcement under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
The bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the Lender Bank had first priority in enforcement against the Walkeshwar Flat with effect from January 24, 2020, having been the first to register with CERSAI, which was done on January 2, 2020. The bench noted that Encore ARC, which conducted the auction on February 28, 2023, acquired the entitlement to priority from the lender bank along with the assignment of the loans to the borrowers with attendant security interests on March 21, 2020.
Case Title: Ashok Mallinath Halsangi v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 247
A Division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Ashok Mallinath Halsangi & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors held that the court in the garb of judicial review cannot sit in the chair of appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.
Case Title: Mohammed Mushtaq Ahmed v. Union of India and Ors. with Shaikh Masud Ismail Shaikh and Ors v. Union of India and Ors. with connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 248
The Bombay High Court upheld the Maharashtra government's notifications officially renaming Aurangabad city and revenue areas to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Osmanabad city and revenue areas to Dharashiv respectively.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor held that the power to name a revenue area in terms of Section 4(1)(vi) of the MLRC will include the power to alter or vary the same as well. The court opined that the power to alter the name of any object, such as revenue areas, is inherently linked to the authority's power to name it initially. If an authority has the statutory power to name a revenue area, it logically also possesses the power to change that name.
Bombay High Court Rejects Petition Against Rules for In-Person Litigants
Case Title: Naresh Govind Vaze v. High Court of Bombay
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 249
The Bombay High Court upheld its Rules which require litigants desiring to appear in-person before the court to be certified as competent to assist the court without engaging an advocate by a Scrutiny Committee nominated by the Chief Justice.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain dismissed a writ petition challenging a Notification dated September 9, 2015 which notified the "Rules for Presentation and Conduct of Proceedings in Person by Parties."
Case Title: In Re: Contract for Emergency Medical Services
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 250
The Bombay High Court initiated a suo moto PIL regarding alleged illegalities in the state government tender process for supply and operation of emergency medical services and ambulances. The tender to 'build, finance, operate and transfer' is connected to the 'Dial 108' ambulance project under Maharashtra Emergency Medical Services (MEMS).
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor converted a PIL filed by an NCP (Sharad Pawar) worker challenging the tender to a suo moto PIL and decided to proceed without the petitioner's involvement.
Case Title: Gorai Villagers Welfare Association v. Hydraulic Engineer, Municipal Commission of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 251
The Bombay High Court directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to employ 10 tankers of 10,000 litres on a daily basis to ensure the continuous supply of 1,00,000 litres of potable water to residents of Gorai village, consisting of around 2000 families.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor was hearing a PIL shedding light on the acute shortage of drinking water faced by residents of Gorai village, Borivali (West). At least 2005 families in the area are deprived of access to clean drinking water, the court noted.
“Thus, a distinct duty constitutionally as well as statutory has been cast on the Municipal Corporation to ensure that the residents within its limits are provided with adequate and proper access to potable water to be used for domestic purposes. No municipality in view of the aforesaid provisions can shirk off its shoulders, the certain responsibility and duty cast on it”, the court observed.
Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Alleged Drug Supplier Booked In Cordelia Cruise Drug Raid Case
Case Title: Abdul Kadar Shaikh v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 252
The Bombay High Court granted bail to one Abdul Kadar Shaikh, an alleged drug supplier and one of the accused in the 2021 Cordelia cruise ship drug case.
Justice NJ Jamadar observed that there were doubts regarding the substance seized from the accused, and he had undergone prolonged incarceration with little likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable period.
“As the identity of the sample is in the corridor of uncertainty, and the complicity of the applicant is primarily based on the seizure of the contraband from the applicant, a prima facie case to hold that eventually the applicant may not be found guilty of the offences can be said to have been made out”, the court observed.
The court also observed that while the weight attached to panch witness' testimony would be determined during trial, the extensive use of the same witness by a premier agency could potentially affect the search and seizure process.
Bombay High Court Orders Maharashtra to Enhance Infrastructure for E-Mulakaat System in Prisons
Case Title: Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 253
The Bombay High Court directed the state government to ensure the availability of essential infrastructure to support the implementation of the e-mulakaat system in prisons to enable lawyers and family members to communicate with inmates virtually using video conferencing.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor disposed of a PIL filed by the Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties after the state government's issuance of a government resolution (GR) providing for e-mulakaats and smart card calling facilities for prisoners statewide.
“The State Government shall implement the provisions contained in the Government Resolution dated 22nd March 2024 in all the prisons throughout the State of Maharashtra and shall also provide adequate infrastructure, wherever required, so that the Government Resolution dated 22nd March 2024 is implemented in its letter and spirit and all the inmates in the prisons are given access to phone calls and e-mulakaat facilities”, the court directed.
The GR dated March 22, 2024 contains provisions for phone calls and e-mulakaat (electronic meeting) facilities for prisoners, excluding Pakistani prisoners.
The PIL sought directions to enforce the provisions of telephonic and electronic modes of communication as outlined in clause 8.38 of the Model Prison Manual, 2016, across all prisons in Maharashtra and to challenge the decision to discontinue such communication methods.
Capital Gain Tax Not Payable On Transfer Of Shares By Way Of Gift: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. Jai Trust v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 254
The Bombay High Court held that capital gain tax is not payable on the transfer of shares by way of gift.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that Section 45 of the Income Tax Act provides that any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset have to be considered by the assessee. Only when there is consideration received can the profit or gain be measured. A gift is commonly known as a voluntary transfer of property by one person to another without any consideration. A gift does not require consideration, and if there is consideration for the transaction, it is not a gift.
Case Title: Sau. Asha wd/o Haridas Katwale & Ors. v. Manager (Mines), M/s Western Coalfields Ltd. Bhadrawati & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 255
A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Avinash G. Gharote and Justice. M.S. Jawalkar while deciding a writ petition held that compassionate appointment can only be claimed in accordance with the existing policy and not as a matter of right
Case Title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 256
The Bombay High Court ordered the repatriation of a seven-year-old child to the United States of America (USA) in custody of her father who had been granted sole custody by a court in USA.
A division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam C Chandak criticized the mother's act of unilaterally relocating the daughter to India despite pending legal proceedings in USA, opining that she abducted the child.
“story weaved and the scheme designed by wife to return to India by abducting Miss 'R', unmindful of the ill-consequences of the said act, is not acceptable it being devoid of merits. The said action of the wife was intended to serve her own interest, not the child's”, the court observed.
The court referred to the observations in case of Philip David Dexter that when the mother is the abducting parent, it is common for her to claim that the matrimonial bond has broken down, often citing ill-treatment and domestic abuse by the male spouse, posing a risk to the child's mental or physical health. The abducting parent may justify their actions by resorting to covert operations, deceiving the spouse and the courts, and seeking refuge in their home country where familial support is available.
The court held that these observations are directly applicable to the present case.
Case Title: Airports Authority of India Workers Union and Anr. v. Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 257
The Bombay High Court observed that employers must acknowledge the physical challenges working women face during pregnancy and while caring for their children and provide all benefits to which they are entitled to facilitate the childbirth.
“Whatever be the nature of their duties, their avocation and the place where they work, they must be provided with all the facilities to which they are entitled. To become a mother is the most natural phenomenon in the life of a woman. Whatever is needed to facilitate the birth of child to a woman who is in service, the employer has to be considerate and sympathetic towards her and must realise the physical difficulties which a working woman would face in performing her duties at the workplace while carrying a baby in the womb or while rearing up the child after birth”, the court observed.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain directed Airports Authority of India to grant maternity benefit within eight weeks to an employee for her third childbirth as her first child was born before she joined AAI and she didn't avail the benefits for the second childbirth.
Case Title: Malabar Gold Limited v. Kajal Shingala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 258
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to Malabar Gold Limited and directed removal of prima facie defamatory social media posts making derogatory comments about the company's CSR initiatives calling for a boycott.
Justice Bharati Dangre criticized the defendant for selectively choosing one photograph that captures scholarships program extended to girls from the Muslim community while ignoring the broader initiative of empowering girls through education.
The court remarked that the quote by Martin Luther King Jr. is squarely applicable to the present case – “Darkness cannot drive out darkness...only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate and only love can do that…”
This selective posting is damaging the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff, with the potential to create divisions in society, the court observed. Moreover, the dissemination of misleading information on various social media platforms is as an intentional effort to harm the plaintiff's reputation, the court opined.
Merely Brandishing Newspaper Cuttings Doesn't Prove Sharing Commercial Expertise: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Hindustan Export & Import Corporation Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 259
The Bombay High Court held that merely brandishing newspaper cuttings does not amount to proof of sharing commercial expertise with its French counterpart as mandated by Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that Section 80-O was inserted in place of Section 85C, which was deleted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1967. While moving the bill relevant to the Finance Act No. 2 of 1967, the then Finance Minister highlighted the fact that fiscal encouragement needs to be given to Indian industries to encourage them to provide technical know-how and technical services to newly developing countries.
Bombay High Court: MBBS Admission Retained Despite False OBC Certificate | Cites National Interest
Case Title: Lubna Shoukat Mujawar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 260
The Bombay High Court refused to revoke the MBBS admission of a doctor though it was obtained under the OBC-Non-Creamy Layer Certificate based on false information. The Court observed that cancelling her admission would cause loss to the nation when the petitioner has qualified as a doctor.
“the Petitioner has completed the course of MBBS and therefore, it would not be proper at this stage to withdraw the qualification obtained by the Petitioner moreso when the Petitioner has qualified as a Doctor. In our country, where the ratio of the Doctors to the population is very low, any action to withdraw the qualification obtained by the Petitioner would be a national loss since the citizens of this country would be deprived of one Doctor”, the court observed.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain, however, cancelled the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate and reclassified her admission to the Open Category, directing her to pay the difference in fees as well as a penalty of Rs. 50,000 for false representation.
“We are conscious of high competition in admission to medical course and we are also conscious about high expenses to be incurred to enrol for the said course under the Open Category. However, that would not justify that the student should obtain the unfair means nor would it justify the action of the parents to be a part of the unfair means for getting the admission under the OBC Category”, the court said.
The court was dealing with a writ petition challenging the cancellation of petitioner's admission to a MBBS course on grounds of an invalid NCL certificate.
Case Title: Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 261
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court declined to quash a criminal case against former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu and Telugu Desam Party (TDP) leader Nakka Ananda Babu.
The case dates back to 2010 when the two were accused of assaulting prison personnel during their transfer to the Aurangabad Central Jail following their arrest in another case.
A division bench of Justice Mangesh Patil and Justice Shailesh P Brahme observed that there is sufficient evidence indicating the complicity of both Naidu and Babu in the alleged crime.
“we have no manner of doubt that there is enough material to reveal complicity of both the applicants in commission of the crime. The F.I.R. expressly alleges about the applicant-accused no. 1 having instigated the fellow prisoners and even threatened of there being war between the two states and the incident having taken place in the manner which has been alleged. There are statements of the witnesses also expressly attributing role to these applicants. There are injury certificates of 12 police personnel”, the court observed.
The court rejected the applications filed by them seeking the quashing of the FIR lodged against them with the Dharmabad police in Maharashtra's Nanded district.
Case Title: Prachi P. Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 262
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice M.M. Sathaye held that upon the implementation of the 7th pay commission, the Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University was duty-bound to initiate measures to secure funds and establish a corpus.
It held that notwithstanding the absence of grants, the institution bears the responsibility to explore innovative avenues for fundraising to meet its obligations concerning payment under the revised pay commission.
Case Title: Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Yogesh Vinayak Tipre
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 263
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate for being absent from the place of work for just a few hours.
The Petitioner, engaged in manufacturing DMT, a raw material for synthetic yarn, operates a DMT manufacturing plot. The Workman, employed as an Accounts Assistant (Weighbridge) in the Petitioner's DMT factory, was issued a show cause notice on 30 June 1999, alleging misconduct for absence during a heavy workload period without permission.
Considering factors such as the Workman's age, now 54 years, and the protracted litigation spanning approximately 25 years, reinstatement with the Petitioner was held to be impractical and not in the Workman's best interest.
Despite the Workman's proven misconduct and the delay in raising the industrial dispute, the High Court held that he was not completely exonerated. His last drawn wages, along with the wages paid during the pendency of the case, served as the basis for calculating the compensation. After considering these factors, the High Court decreed a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,00,000 to be paid by the Petitioner to the Workman.
The Workman was permitted to withdraw the awarded compensation from the maturity value of the backwages deposited in Court. The balance amount from the invested backwages shall be refunded to the Workman.
Case Title: Prakash S. Hande v. Hindustan Lever Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 264
A single bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne while deciding a writ petition in the case of Prakash S. Hande v. Hindustan Lever Limited reiterated that the burden of proving completion of 240 days of service in any calendar year rests on the Petitioner.
The court observed that the Petitioner admitted to deliberate breaks in his service with the Respondent from June 1, 1987 to March 21, 1998, indicating that his service during those years was not continuous. Although the Petitioner claimed to have completed 240 days of continuous service from December 9, 1994 to November 7, 1995, the burden of proving this rested on him.
Case Title: TATA Chemicals Limited v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 265
The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High set aside a penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs imposed on Tata Chemicals and other companies for manufacturing and selling substandard iodized salt.
Justice Anil L Pansare observed that the authorities did not follow the mandatory time limit for lab analysis of samples.
“In the present case, the RFL has apparently not followed the time limit stipulated in the Rules of 2011. The Report, thus, suffers from non-compliance of mandatory provisions. The penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of such report. The Adjudicating Officer as also the Tribunal have rendered unsustainable finding”, the court said.
The court directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India to issue advisories or circulars ensuring adherence to procedural standards in laboratory analyses.
“The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India shall issue advisory or office order or circular in terms of what has been noted in the body of the order.”
No Change In Opening And Closing Stock Of NCDs; Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice
Case Title: Upesi Ventures Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 266
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment notices as there was no change in the opening and closing stock of the non-convertible debts (NCDs).
The Bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that the reopening of assessment by the notice was merely on the basis of a change of opinion of the AO. The change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
Case Title: KEC International Ltd. v. UOI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 267
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment notices issued merely on the basis of information received from the Directorate General of GST.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that the AO is only referring to the information received from the Directorate General of GST. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that he independently applied his mind to the material received or that he has analysed the response from Petitioner with the material received, which reflects total non-application of mind.
Case Title: Mohd. Murad Oliar Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 268
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a Bangladeshi national accused of obtaining entry to India without a passport and visa, forging an AADHAAR card and PAN card, and possessing a commercial quantity of contraband drugs.
Justice RN Laddha observed –
“In the present case, there is no disagreement regarding the applicant's detention since 13 May 2022. It is undisputed that the applicant is not a citizen of India. It is acknowledged that the applicant was not in possession of the contraband material. There is no material linking the applicant to accused No.1, who allegedly had a commercial quantity of contraband material. The alleged forged Pan Card and Aadhar Card were already seized. Furthermore, the applicant's arrest occurred approximately three months after accused No.1's arrest. Given these circumstances and the pending trial, there appears to be no valid reason to continue detaining the applicant.”
Case Title: Gudipati Subramaniam v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 269
The Bombay High Court denied bail to an exporter and an Iraqi national who were arrested by Mumbai Customs' Central Intelligence Unit for alleged attempt to illegally export 4,224 kg of psychotropic substance in February 2023.
Justice NJ Jamadar held that obtaining authorization under Rule 58 of the NDPS Rules, 1985 for export of psychotropic substances is mandatory even if the exporter has a licence to possess and sell the drugs for medicinal purposes.
“The use of the terms 'licence', 'permit' or 'authorization;, disjunctively, indicates that these terms have not been used interchangeably…If the submissions sought to be canvassed on behalf of accused Nos.1 and 4 that a 'licence' subsumes in its fold the “authorization” envisaged by Rule 58 of the NDPS Rules, 1985, the Parliament would not have used the terms licence and authorization disjunctively. On a plain construction of Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 export of a psychotropic substance sans licence, permit or authorization under the governing rules or orders is expressly prohibited”, the court stated.
The court however, granted bail to co-accused freight manager Ravi Kavthankar, noting that it was "debatable" whether he was aware of the alleged offences.
Case Title: Dattaram Atmaram Sawant v. Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 270
Leave encashment is not a bounty but right earned by employee, the Bombay High Court observed while affirming the entitlement of two former employees of Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank to encash their accrued privilege leave, despite their resignations from the bank.
A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice MM Sathaye allowed the employees' writ petitions and directed the bank to pay the amount for leaves accumulated by two employees who resigned from the bank.
“Leave encashment is akin to a salary, which is property. Depriving a person of his property without any valid statutory provision would violate Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. Leave encashment paid on account of unutilised leave is not a bounty. If an employee has earned it and the employee has chosen to accumulate his earned leave to his credit, then encashment becomes his right”, the court observed.
Case Title: Echjay Industries Pvt Ltd v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 271
The Bombay High Court quashed the search proceedings authorized by CBDT u/s 132(1) along with consequential notices and further actions on the ground that the material considered for authorizing the search is irrelevant and unrelated, and that “the reasons recorded, only indicates a mere pretence”.
Finding that the reasons forming part of the satisfaction note must satisfy the judicial conscience, the Division Bench comprising Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale observed that “the note also does not contain anything altogether regarding any reason to believe, on account of which, there is total non-compliance with the requirements as contemplated by Section 132(1) of the said Act which vitiates the search and seizure. It does not fulfil the jurisdictional pre-conditions specified in Section 132 of the Act”.
Case Title: CG Power And Industrial Solutions Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 272
The Bombay High Court quashed the CBDT's order rejecting the application filed by CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd seeking condonation of delay in filing returns of income based on recast of accounts pursuant to NCLT's order.
The High Court clarified that any assessment order passed under Sections 143(3) or 144C as well as the consequent notices or orders for AYs for which re-casted accounts have been filed, will not survive.
The Division Bench comprising Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale observed that when the accounts were recast based on NCLT's order and such accounts were accepted by NCLT and also filed with the RoC under MCA “how could the Income Tax Department raise such frivolous objections that the delay in filing the returns of Income based on the re-casted accounts should not be even condoned”.
Case Title: M/s. Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR) v. Collector of Mumbai (City) State Excise Department & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 273
The Bombay High Court directed that the restriction on the sale of alcohol in Mumbai on June 4, the day of counting votes for the Lok Sabha elections, will remain only until the results are declared.
A vacation bench of Justice Nitin Borkar and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan modified the existing orders of the Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban District Collectors that had declared the entire day as a "dry day."
Bombay High Court Grants One-Week Temporary Bail To Life Convict For Law Entrance Exam
Case Title: Sohail Salim Ansari v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 274
The Bombay High Court granted temporary bail to Sohail Salim Ansari, a convict serving a life sentence, to enable him to appear for the Maharashtra Common Entrance Test (MH-CET) scheduled on May 30, 2024 for admission to the five-year law course.
A vacation bench of Justice NR Borkar and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed, “It appears that the Applicant is in jail for about nine years. It further appears that during trial he was on bail for some period and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. Considering the said facts, we are inclined to release the Applicant on temporary bail for a period of one week.”
Case Title: Dr. Naveed-Us-Sahar v. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 275
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held that the Chairman of the governing body of a college cannot nominate a representative to his seat on the Selection Committee for appointment of the principal of the college.
A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar dismissed a writ petition filed by one Dr. Naveed-Us-Sahar challenging the rejection of her appointment to the post of Principal at the Marathwada College of Education, Aurangabad. The Marathwada University had rejected the appointment as the Chairman nominated a proxy in the Selection Committee.
“When composition of the Selection Committee is specifically prescribed under the UGC regulations, presence of Chairperson, who is also Chairman of the governing body is mandated, then it would be difficult to accept petitioner's contention that Chairperson's nominee can replace him. Pertinently, there is no provision enabling Chairman to delegate his power to preside over Selection Committee constituted under UGC regulations”, the court held.
Case Title: Electronica India Ltd. v. Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 276
The Bombay High Court held that the Trade Marks Registrar cannot record the name of an assignee in the Register without passing a speaking order on the application for registration of assignment of trademark after considering objections and recording reasons.
Justice RI Chagla ruled in favour of Electronica India Ltd., setting aside the decision of the Trade Marks Registry to allow the registration of assignment of “Electronica” trademarks in favour of Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt. Ltd. without any speaking order.
The court found that there was no formal order passed by the Trade Marks Registry on the Electronica Hitech's application for trademark registration.
“The impugned orders/communications of the Respondent No. 2-Registrar of the Trade Marks, Mumbai allowing the requests of Respondent No. 1 in Form TM-24 are set aside. The Respondent No. 2 (Registry) shall consider the applications in Form TM-24 de novo after granting the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard and thereafter, passing a speaking order on the requests of the 1st Respondent in Form TM-24 which shall be in conformity with Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999”, the court directed.
'Transit Rent' Can't Be Considered As 'Revenue Receipt', Not Liable To Be Taxed: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sarfaraz S. Furniturewalla v. Afshan Sharfali Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 277
The Bombay High Court held that 'Transit Rent' is not to be considered a revenue receipt and is not liable to be taxed. As a result, there will be no question of the deduction of TDS from the amount payable by the developer to the tenant.
The bench of Justice Rajesh S. Patil observed that the ordinary meaning of rent would be an amount that the tenant or licensee pays to the landlord or licensee. In the present proceedings, the term used is “transit rent," which is commonly referred to as a hardship allowance, rehabilitation allowance, or displacement allowance, which is paid by the developer or landlord to the tenant who suffers hardship due to dispossession.
Case Title: Airports Authority of India Workers Union & Anr v. Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 278
A Division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain in the case of Airports Authority of India Workers Union & Anr Vs The Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Anr held that birth of a first child before joining the service is not relevant for considering of maternity leave after joining the service. The object of Maternity Benefit Regulation under AAI Regulations is not to curb the population but to give such benefit only on two occasions during the service period.
The court further held that “The object of the Maternity Benefit Regulation which is posed for our consideration is not to curb the population but to give such benefit only on two occasions during the service period and, therefore, it is in that context that the condition of two surviving children is imposed”
Case Title: Omkara Assets Reconstruction In the matter of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Classic Diamonds (India) Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 279
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja held that as long as no irreversible actions, such as actual sales of immovable or movable properties, have occurred, the Company Court retains the discretion to transfer proceedings to the NCLT.
The bench held that it is only where the winding up proceedings have reached the stage where it would be irreversible, making it impossible to set the clock back, that the Company Court must proceed with the winding up instead of transferring the proceedings to NCLT.
Case Title: Azhar Basha Tamboli Ltd & Ors v. Ravi S Gupta & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 280
The Bombay High Court restrained the release of film “Hamare Baarah” on any public platform until June 14, 2024.
A division bench of Justices NR Borkar and Kamal Khata was dealing with a writ petition against the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) seeking to revoke the certification granted to the film and thereby injunct it from being released.
“Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are restrained from in any manner exhibiting, circulating or making available for viewership to the general public the film in question, namely “Hamare Baarah” on any public forum/platform including the platforms of the Respondent Nos. 10 to 12, till 14th June 2024”, the court directed.
Case Title: Azhar Basha Tamboli v. Ravi S Gupta & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 281
The Bombay High Court allowed the release of the film Hamare Baarah after the makers agreed to delete certain controversial dialogues.
A vacation bench of Justice Kamal Khata and Justice Rajesh S Patil was dealing with a writ petition against the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) seeking to revoke the certification granted to the film and thereby injunct it from being released.
“We are of the view that if an individual such as in this Petition is permitted to stall the release of movies which have been duly certified by the CBFC it would encourage holding film producers to ransom,” the court said.
Case Title: Rajiv Bansal & Ors vs State of Maharashtra and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 282
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice N. J. Jamadar in the case of Rajiv Bansal & Ors vs State of Maharashtra and Ors held that withholding of salary or emoluments does not fall within the ambit of offence of cheating.
The court held that for the offence of cheating, there needs to be deceit coupled with injury. Cheating involves deception, fraudulent and dishonest inducement and thereby making the person deliver any property or to consent that any person shall retain any property. The court further held that
“The withholding of a portion of the salary/emoluments by no stretch of imagination can fall within the dragnet of the offence of cheating as the employer cannot be said to have either deceived the employee or fraudulently, or dishonestly induced the employee to deliver the property or give consent to any person to retain the property or intentionally induced the employee to do or omit to do anything, which the employee would not do or omit, if he was not so deceived.”
The court further held that to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention of the accused should be dishonest from the inception of the transaction. However, the act of AIL to deduct the salary/emoluments was in exercise of its authority as an employer. Terming such deduction as illegal is different than terming such deduction to be cheating.
Case Title: The Chief Officer, Pen Municipal Council & Ors. v. Shekhar B. Abhang & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 283
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne while deciding a writ petition in the case of The Chief Officer, Pen Municipal Council & Ors. v. Shekhar B. Abhang & Ors. held that regularization of services cannot be claimed merely based on long-term continuance of employment as this does not create any inherent right to regularization.
The court relied on the landmark Supreme Court Judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. which established that public employment must adhere to the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and regularization can only be considered in cases of irregular (not illegal) appointments against duly sanctioned posts where the employees have worked for ten years or more without court orders.
"Right To Decent Last Rites": High Court Directs Municipal Commissioner To Personally Address Issue Of Inadequate Burial Grounds In Mumbai
Case Title: Shamsher Ahmed Shaikh & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 284
The Bombay High Court directed the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to personally look into the issue of inadequate burial grounds in Mumbai and take necessary steps to identify and acquire new burial plots.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar expressed disapproval over the Municipal Corporation's lack of action, emphasizing the importance of the right to a decent burial.
“Such callousness on the part of the authorities cannot be appreciated. Right of dead to be given a decent and respectful last rites is as important as any other right available when he is alive. Moreover, it is the statutory duty and obligation cast on The Municipal Corporation to provide adequate place for burial of the dead. The authorities of the Municipal Corporation, thus, cannot shirk their shoulders away from such statutory responsibility”, the court stated.
The court was dealing with a PIL regarding paucity of space for adequate burial grounds in the city.
Case Title: Razi Ahmed Khan v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 285
The Bombay High Court denied bail to three alleged members of the banned organization Popular Front of India (PFI) booked for allegedly conspiring to “overawe the Government by use of criminal force” and “transform India into an Islamic country by 2047”.
A division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam C Chandak rejected the appeals filed by three accused against the orders of the Special Judge, Nashik, which had previously rejected their bail applications.
“Record of investigation indicates that, the Appellants in connivance with other Accused persons conspired to overawe the Government by use of criminal force. The first information report is self-eloquent. There is more than sufficient material available on record in the form of statements of witnesses and the documents seized from the electronic devices of the Accused persons that, they indulged into activity of inciting like minded people to join them to overawe the Government by use of criminal force. They also conspired to transform India into an Islamic country by 2047. They are not only propagators but actively intending to implement the Vision-2047 document of their organization”, the court observed.
Case Title: XYZ v. The Dean of BJ, Government Medical College and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 286
The Bombay High Court held that abortion can be allowed in cases where continuing pregnancy would cause grave mental injury to the pregnant woman.
The division bench of Justice N.R. Borkar and Justice Somasekhar Sudaresan held that such allowance cannot be limited to pregnancy emanating from sexual assault.
The 19 years old petitioner had approached the High Court seeking permission to terminate her 25-weeks pregnancy which had resulted from a consensual relationship.
Case Title: Karan Johar v. IndiaPride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 287
The Bombay High Court restrained the release of the upcoming film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar”, and any promotional material finding a strong prima facie case that the makers have made unauthorised use of filmmaker Karan Johar's name and personality.
The court also restrained the makers from using Johar's name or any other attributes or reference to the name “Karan Johar” in any manner, in the title of the film or in the promotion directly or indirectly including but not limited to all promotional materials etc. which is intended to be sold, promoted or otherwise distributed in relation to the film.
Justice RI Chagla said in his order, “In my view a strong prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff to protect his personality rights which are vested in him considering that he has the status of celebrity as apparent from several blockbuster films which he has directed and produced. There is no manner of doubt that the plaintiff has played a role in transforming the Bollywood film industry and launched careers of several successful actors. I have to doubt that prima facie the subject film is a direct reference to the plaintiff and makes unauthorised use of plaintiff's name.”
The court observed that the use of Karan Johar's name makes it evident that the makers are using the personality of Karan Johar.
“The defendants are creating confusion in the minds of the public at large that it is associated with him as the general public will immediately identify and associate the use of the name “Karan” and “Johar” together in the title of the said film solely with the Plaintiff upon becoming aware of the title of the said film”, the court stated.
Case Title: Jiv Maitri Trust v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 288
The Bombay High Court declined to stay the implementation of a circular issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) permitting animal sacrifices at 67 private meat shops and 47 municipal markets during Bakrid on June 17, 2024.
A division bench of Justice MS Sonak and Justice Kamal Khata, while dealing with petitions seeking urgent stay on the BMC circular, noted that the petitioners mentioned the matter and sought urgent hearing through a praecipe (a written request for an urgent hearing).
The court noted that the praecipe does not seek any interim relief and simply seeks circulation of matter for urgent hearing. The court did not find this method appropriate for seeking relief. Oral application for interim relief cannot be entertained, the court said.
Case Title: Gopal C. Mehta & Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 289
Taking serious note of “blatant contraventions of the Circulars issued by the DGPMS as well as other statutory requirements” for maintenance of case diaries by the police, the Bombay High Court seized the improperly maintained case diary of a criminal investigation from the police and sent it to the DGP for remedial action.
A division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale said that the investigating officer in the case had failed to comply with Section 172(1-B) of the CrPC and the circular issued by the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State (DGPMS) on February 12, 2024. The circular mandates police officers to maintain case diaries in the form of bound and numbered pages as per legal provisions.
“We direct the D.G.P.M.S. to take appropriate remedial action in this regard and to ensure strict compliance at least of its own Circulars by all the Police Officers in the State”, the court directed.
Case Title: Kalpana and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 290
A full bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Anil S. Kilor, Anil L. Pansare and M.W.Chandwani, JJ., while answering the questions of law in the case of Kalpana and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, held that the prohibition on substituting name of one legal representative of deceased employee for compassionate appointment, by another legal representative is arbitrary & irrational.
The court observed that if the application submitted by one of the family members has already resulted in an order of appointment in favour of such an applicant, at that stage, substitution may not be permitted. However, where the application seeking appointment on compassionate basis is still pending consideration and if any application for substitution of name in place of the former one is rejected, it would amount to denial of appointment on compassionate ground contrary to the policy.
Case Title: Jaiprakash Kulkarni v. The Banking Ombudsman and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 291
The Bombay High Court directed the Bank of Baroda to refund Rs. 76,90,017 to a company and its director who lost the amount in a cyber fraud incident involving unauthorized electronic banking transactions for which no OTP was sent.
A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla allowed a writ petition seeking refund of the amount observing –
“both as per the RBI Circular and the said Policy of Respondent No.2 (bank), the liability of the Petitioners in respect of the said unauthorized transactions would be zero as the unauthorized transactions have taken place due to a third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with Respondent No.2 nor with the Petitioners...In these circumstances, as per the RBI Circular and as per the Policy of Respondent No.2, the Petitioner is entitled to refund of the said amount from Respondent No.2.”
Case Title: Hajrat Peer Malik Rehan Mira Saheb Dargah, Vishalgad v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 292
The Bombay High Court permitted the slaughtering of animals for the festival of Bakri Eid on June 17, 2024, in the protected area around the Vishalgad Fort in Kolhapur District.
A division bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla granted interim relief to petitioners in petitions challenging the ban on animal slaughter in the area issued by various authorities, including the Director of Archaeology and Museums, Bombay, the Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur, and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur.
“We are of the opinion that at least for the festival of Bakri Eid which is on 17th June 2024, and Urus which is till 21st June 2024, the slaughtering of animals by the Petitioners can be permitted. However, we make it clear that the actual killing or sacrifices of animals or birds shall only take place in the closed premises at Gat No. 19 which is a private land owned by Shri Mubarak Usman Mujawar. The killing of animals and birds certainly should not be done in an open place or in a public place”, the court held.
The court said that interpreting the entire 333-acre area as a protected monument, which would prevent the residents within this area from cooking and consuming food, is absurd.
“It is not in dispute that in the protected area, namely, 333 acres 19 gunthas, there are about 575 people and about 107 families residing in Vishalgad…If we were to hold that the entire area of 333 acres and 19 gunthas was the “protected monument”, then under Rule 8(c), these 107 families, admittedly residing within the area of 333 acres 19 gunthas, would not be allowed either to cook or consume food. This would effectively mean that these 107 families would either have to starve or go outside their homes (beyond 333 acres 19 gunthas) and cook and consume their food. This interpretation would be absurd to say the least”, the court said.
Case Title: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Gleck Pharma (OPC) Pvt Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 293
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, held that structurally & phonetically similar trademark can't be registered for drug treating similar ailment but having different composition from already registered mark, as it may create confusion for consumers leading to potential side effects.
Case Title: Pidilite Industries Limited v. Astral Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 294
The Bombay High Court granted ad interim injunction in favour of Pidilite Industries Limited (Pidilite) restraining Astral Limited (Astral) from infringing Pidilite's registered design of Coex plastic containers of its M-SEAL PV SEAL products.
Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla held, “the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (a) of the Interim Application. If the injunction as sought in prayer (a) is not granted, then grave loss, harm and prejudice would be caused to the Plaintiff as the Defendant would then continue to use the impugned container with the design of the Plaintiff.”
The court rejected the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff's container design is a mere trade variant of a known design and cannot be protected under Section 19(1)(c) of the Designs Act. The court found this argument to be incorrect as the Defendant failed to show any prior design similar to the Plaintiff's design.
The court outlined three factors to determine if an article's design is a trade variant: the nature and size of the article, its utilitarian nature, and whether only minor changes are possible, which may still be substantial enough to render the design novel.
The court found that the Plaintiff's container design was not significantly similar to any known designs or combinations thereof. The features of the Plaintiff's design were substantially different and not minor or inconsequential, the court said. Additionally, the Defendant, being in the same trade, had not produced a container with a similar design until recently, supporting the originality of the Plaintiff's design, the court held. “The Defendant has failed to demonstrate that there is any prior design or one very similar to it that precedes the Plaintiff's design or that the Plaintiff has merely created a trade variant”, the court observed.
Case Title: Saket Abhiraj Jha v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 295
Highlighting that rape cases stemming from failed relationships between adults waste the valuable time of both the police and the courts, the Bombay High Court called for a robust mechanism to impose heavy costs on individuals who misuse the judicial process.
Justice Pitale highlighted the recurring nature of such cases in urban areas like Mumbai, which leads to wastage of valuable time which can be otherwise utilized in investigating serious offences.
“With passage of time, the alleged victim and the accused come together, having resolved their differences and then the victim gives consent for grant of bail and even for quashing of such proceedings...This Court is of the opinion that in such cases a robust mechanism ought to be developed for imposing heavy costs on such individuals who end up wasting the time of the Investigating Authority as well as the Court. In an appropriate case, this Court shall proceed to pass such an order”, the court stated.
The court granted bail to one Saket Abhiraj Jha, who was arrested for various alleged offences, including rape, extortion, and defamation under the IPC and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).
Case Title: Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary v. Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 296
The Bombay High Court referred to a larger bench the question of whether explanations to Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which deals with the grounds on which probate of a will can be revoked or annulled for “just cause”, are exhaustive or merely illustrative.
Case Title: Chemco Plast Applicant/Defendant In the matter between: Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Chemco Plast
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 297
The Bombay High Court dismissed an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, by defendant Chemco Plast seeking rejection of a trademark infringement suit filed against it by plaintiff Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The court observed that the suit is not barred under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act (mandatory mediation) as it contemplates urgent interim reliefs.
“this Court finds that on the basis of the pleadings in the plaint, the documents filed therewith, as also on the basis of the pleadings in the application for interim reliefs, the plaintiff has indeed made out enough grounds to demonstrate that it does contemplate urgent interim reliefs, thereby showing that the plaint in the present case cannot be rejected as being barred by section 12-A of the aforesaid Act”, the court observed.
Case Title: XYZ v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 298
The Bombay High Court directed the Principal District Judge, Thane to conduct an inquiry into the functioning of Juvenile court in Bhiwandi, Mumbai after a clerk allegedly refused to accept charge sheet in a case despite HC orders.
A division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale was dealing with an application filed by a juvenile accused seeking quashing of the FIR.
“Prima facie, it appears to us that the clerk Mr. Sudhir Pawar attached to Juvenile Court at Bhiwandi has blatantly flouted the Orders passed by this Court. He has displayed total disregard for our Orders. It is unfortunate to note that even the Presiding Officer of that Court namely Smt. Seema Ghute is either oblivious to the orders passed by this Court or has feigned deliberate ignorance thereto. We strongly condemn this conduct of Mr. Pawar and find the conduct of the Registry of the said Court disgraceful. It clearly amounts to interference in the smooth administration of criminal justice. It also appears to us that the Presiding Judicial Officer has no control over her Court and, therefore her role also needs to be examined by the Principal District Judge”, the court observed.
Case Title: Azhar Basha Tamboli v. Ravi S Gupta & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 299
The Bombay High Court allowed the release of film "Hamare Baarah", on June 21, 2024 after the makers agreed to make certain changes in the movie.
A division bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla passed the order in a writ petition seeking a ban on the film on the ground that it is derogatory to Islam and married Muslim women in India.
The petitioner agreed to not raise any objection to the release of film after the agreed-upon changes are made to the movie. The makers agreed to mute certain dialogues and a Quranic verse and put two disclaimers of 12 seconds each in the film.
Bombay HC Confirms Conviction of Teacher for Sexually Assaulting 3 Students
Case Title: Ramesh Ratan Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 300
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of one Ramesh Ratan Jadhav, a primary school teacher, for sexually assaulting three minor girls in the classroom.
Justice Kishore C Sant observed, “The evidence of the victim girls is found to be reliable. The presence of the accused is not denied. Though the defence is taken of animosity as a motive for false implication, the same does not appear to have been taken from the cross-examination & statement under Section 313.”
The prosecution alleged that Jadhav, while teaching in a primary school, sexually assaulted three girls, who were in the second standard. The incidents occurred in the classroom, where Jadhav allegedly touched the girls' vaginas and chests after making them lie down on the table and floor. An FIR was registered on December 24, 2021, at Ratnagiri Rural Police Station, leading to Jadhav's arrest, charge sheet, and trial.
The court noted that the minor victims' evidence was consistent and corroborated by other witnesses, including the male students who were sent outside the classroom. The defence's argument of a false implication due to school management disputes was not supported by the cross-examination or Jadhav's statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, the court noted.
The court found no reason to interfere with the Trial Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: KN Surendran Pillai v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 301
The Bombay High Court directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) to take action against Advocate Jagdish M. Ahuja for appearing in court without the prescribed attire of bands and Advocate's Gown.
Justice Prithviraj K Chavan noted in his order –
“He is not in proper attire, in the sense, he is without bands and Advocate's Gown as prescribed by the Rules. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa shall initiate appropriate action against him.”
Case Title: Film & Television Producers Guild of India (FPGI) ) v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 302
The Bombay High Court upheld the state government's demand for entertainment duty of Rs. 71,87,500 on the Film & Television Producers Guild of India (FPGI) for organizing the APSARA Awards Function in 2006.
A division bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain, however, struck down the penalty of the same amount imposed of FPGI.
The petitioner contended that the APSARA award function did not fall within the ambit of "entertainment" as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, especially considering the amendments introduced in 2010 which specifically included "award function" within the scope of entertainment subject to concessional rates. The petitioner argued that since the function was held prior to 2010, it should not be subjected to entertainment duty.
The court noted that while the definition of "award function" was formally inserted into the Act in 2010, the scope of "entertainment" had always encompassed performances and exhibitions, irrespective of the amendment year.
The court rejected the petitioner's contention that subsequent insertion is to be construed to mean that award function would not fall within the definition of “entertainment” prior to 2010 as “misconceived”.
Case Title: Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 303
The Bombay High Court upheld the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directing Vodafone India to deposit Rs. 230 crores for staying income tax demand.
The bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan directed the petitioner, Vodafone India, to deposit an amount of Rs. 230 crore, being the lowest or minimum amount of 20% of the disputed tax demand, which, in our opinion, is clearly in consonance with the provisions of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act.
The first proviso to Section 254 (2A) of the Income Tax Act provides that the ITAT may grant stay under the first proviso, subject to the condition that the assessee deposits not less than 20% of the amount of tax, interest, fee, penalty, or any other sum payable.
Case Title: Bombay Iron And Steel Labour Board v. State Bank of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 304
The Bombay High Court dismissed an interim application filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking rejection of a Commercial Summary Suit filed by the Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board for recovery of deposits worth Rs. 36 crores with interest.
Justice Abhay Ahuja held that the dispute between the parties qualifies as a commercial dispute and is eligible to be tried under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it is a banking transaction.
“the Defendant – bank which is a banking company / banker, has in the ordinary course of its business, accepted the deposits of money from the Plaintiff – Board which is repayable on demand or maturity and issued fixed deposit receipts which are mercantile documents and the suit has been filed for enforcement of the fixed deposit receipts, as the Defendant – bank had failed to repay the amounts payable to the Plaintiff – Board, despite demand / legal notice for recovery, therefore, in my view, the dispute is a commercial dispute, squarely falling within the definition of commercial dispute as defined under Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act.”
The court held that the allegation of fraud, in the plaint would not change the cause of action of the suit, which is a failure of SBI to pay the amount with interest accrued as per the fixed deposit receipts, despite legal notice as well as the pre-institution mediation. The plaintiff claimed that mediation failed as SBI refused to participate.
Case Title: ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. v. UOI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 305
The Bombay High Court, while quashing show cause notices against ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., held that non-communication of show cause notices transferred to the call book is fatal.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the reason why the show cause notices were transferred to the call book was because of the SLP pending in the Apex Court in Malabar Management Services Pvt. Ltd. The legality of the issues raised in Malabar Management Services Pvt. Ltd. has attained finality, and in Union of India & Anr. vs. . Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Private Limited, the issue is decided in favor of the assessee. Therefore, petitioner's case was kept in abeyance in view of the pending SLP in the Apex Court, and it is accepted that the issue covered the issue in petitioner's case as well. It would, therefore, serve no purpose in adjudicating the show cause notice.
The bench did not accept the suggestion made by the department that they should be permitted to proceed with the adjudication of show cause notices and remarked that it could be nothing but an exercise in futility.
Slump Sale Doesn't Amount To Sale Of Goods Within MVAT Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Piramal Enterprises Limited v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 306
The Bombay High Court held that slump sale under the Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) would not amount to sale of goods within the purview of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) Act.
The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that it was completely a flawed approach on the part of the reviewing authority to tax part of the BTA considering it to be petitioner's sales/turnover of sales, for the financial year 2010-11 in respect of the amounts of the intangible assets as set out in schedule 3.3 of the BTA. Thus, in the context of the BTA, the reviewing authority could not have regarded the intangible items to be in any manner “sale of goods”, so as to fall within the petitioner's turnover of sales.
The issue raised was whether the department could tax sale of the petitioner's 'Base Domestic Formulation Business' as a “going concern” (slump sale) under the provisions of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
Case Title: Godrej Projects Development and Anr. v. Zakir Ramzan Qureshi and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 307
The Bombay High Court criticized an Additional Sessions Judge for using the word “handicapped” to express frustration over heavy case load.
Justice Prithviraj K Chavan observed, “The tone and tenor of the language is unwarranted and unacceptable, in the sense, the Judicial Officer should not have expressed his frustration and inability by using the words “handicapped” as well as non inclination to grant stay.”.
Case Title: Patil Samgonda Namgonda v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 308
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Gauri Godse, J., while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Shri. Patil Samgonda Namgonda v. State of Maharashtra, held that employee's conduct of filing petitions does not show the abandonment of claim for reinstatement in service.
Case Title: Shripad Dwarkanath Gupte and Ors v. Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 309
A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ. & Arif S. Doctor, J., while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Shri Shripad Dwarkanath Gupte And Ors vs Union Of India, held that employees once accepting the promotions on grade wise basis without protest, are estopped from challenging the same.
Case Title: CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. M/s. SAR Parivahan Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 310
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held that even in a case which does not fall under the second proviso of the Section 36(3), by relying on the first proviso, the Court can consider whether to grant unconditional stay of the award or not.
Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the enforcement of arbitral awards. It outlines the procedure for enforcing an arbitral award once the time for challenging the award under Section 34 has expired.
Recording Unnatural Offence With Minor Boys | Bombay HC Grants Bail to POCSO Accused Without Prima Facie Sexual Intent
Case Title: Kapil Suresh Taak v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 311
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man booked for allegedly stripping three teenagers, inserting fingers in the anus, abusing them and assaulting them with a leather belt.
Justice Anil S Kilor allowed the bail application of one Kapil Suresh Taak observing,
“After going through the FIR and the allegations made in the FIR against the Applicant coupled with the material collected during investigation, prima facie nothing is brought on record to show that there was any sexual intent. The case is of physical and mental torture meted out to the minor victims in the background that Applicant and other co-accused have considered them as thieves.”
Case Title: M/s Halliburton India Operations Private Limited v. Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 312
The Bombay High Court division bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil held that the appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited to cases where the lower court's order was arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or ignored settled legal principles on interlocutory injunctions.
Section 37 of the Arbitration Act allows appeals against specific orders related to arbitration, including refusals to refer to arbitration, measures under Section 9, and decisions on arbitral awards under Section 34.
Bombay High Court Summons Patanjali Director In Trademark Infringement Case
Case Title: Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 313
The Bombay High Court directed Patanjali Ayurveda director Rajnish Mishra to appear before it in connection with trademark infringement case filed by Mangalam Organics alleging that Patanjali infringed on packaging and trade dress of its camphor product.
Justice RI Chagla was dealing with a contempt application by Mangalam Organics Ltd. against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. and others for alleged breach of an ad-interim order dated August 30, 2023.
Case Title: XYZ v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 314
The Bombay High Court, while ordering the release of the minor accused in the Pune Porsche car accident case, criticised the “haphazard manner” in which the prosecution and law enforcement agencies handled the situation, influenced by public outcry.
Calling the accident a “ghastly” incident, a division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande emphasized the importance of adhering to the rule of law, quoting Martin Luther King: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Case Title: Zainab Abdul Qayyum Choudhary & Ors. v. Chembur Trombay Education Society's NG Acharya and DK Marathe College and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 315
The Bombay High Court observed that the dress code prohibiting students from wearing hijab, nakab, burka, stole, cap etc. on the campus of a Mumbai college is in students' larger academic interest.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S Patil while dismissing a writ petition against the dress code by nine female students NG Acharya and D. K. Marathe College of Art, Science and Commerce observed –
“The object behind prescribing the dress code is evident from the Instructions since they state that the intention is that a student's religion ought not to be revealed. It is in larger academic interest of the students as well as for the administration and discipline of the College that this object is achieved. This is for the reason that students are expected to attend the educational institution to receive appropriate instructions for advancement of their academic careers. The insistence for following the dress code is within the college premises and the petitioners' freedom of choice and expression is not otherwise affected.”
Case Title: Karvy Innotech Limited v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 316
The Bombay High Court, while noting the discrepancies between the dates of creation and signing of the assessment order, quashed the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act (MVAT) Order, which was passed beyond the limitation period of 4 years.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the return related to 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2016 and, therefore, a four-year period would expire on 31st March 2020, and the digital signature on the order served on the petitioner has been put on 23rd June 2020. In the order filed with the reply, the date typed is March 19, 2020.
Case Title: Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 317
“A relationship between two adult individuals does not justify sexual assault by one on his partner”, the Bombay High Court observed while refusing to quash a rape case filed by a woman against her boyfriend.
A division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR and the subsequent charge sheet filed against the petitioner observing –
The petitioner is booked for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 of the IPC, registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara.
Case Title: Fabricship Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 318
The Bombay High Court held that transportation of machinery from Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority (JNPT) to the factory of the assessee does not constitute supply, and hence GST is not payable.
The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the first limb of Section 129(1)(a), which provides for a penalty equal to one hundred percent of the tax payable, cannot be invoked in the present case. The State GST Authority in the impugned order has erroneously applied the rate of GST without first satisfying itself whether the transportation to one's own factory can at all fall within the charging section. The applicability of the rate of tax would get triggered only if a transaction falls within the meaning of the term “supply” as per Section 7 of the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act (MGST Act).
GST Regime At Nascent Stage; Bombay High Court Quashes Order Rejecting IGST Refund
Case Title: Sanjeev Suresh Desai v. UoI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 319
The Bombay High Court quashed the order rejecting Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) on the grounds that the order was passed without any reason and without application of mind.
The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain have observed that the CGST Commissioner does not have the power to condone the delay, but the writ court does.
The bench further observed, “Our judicial conscience does not permit us to reject this cause shown as bogus, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner was an individual and the GST regime was at a nascent stage. Moreover, in both orders impugned in the petitions, there is no whisper about the merits of the application.”
Case Title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 320
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man belonging to the LGBTQ+ community booked for trafficking a one year and seven months old child observing that members of the community are vulnerable within prison.
Justice Manish Pitale allowed his bail application observing –“This Court is of the opinion that a person belonging to the LGBTQ+ community, who is also HIV positive, can be said to be a person belonging to a category of persons, who are indeed vulnerable, particularly within the four corners of a jail.”
Case Title: Ritu Dinesh Maloo v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 321
No prudent person will ever drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, said the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court while denying anticipatory bail to a female Human Resource (HR) professional accused of mowing down two young men while driving her Mercedes under the influence of alcohol. Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke noted from the material on record, that the female professional had consumed "rum and vodka" from two different restaurants in the night of February 25, and within 5 minutes, covered a total of 3.8 kilometers distance, indicating that she was rashly driving the vehicle.
"A prudent person will not drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The manner in which the applicant has driven the car, which appears from the CCTV Footage, caused death of two persons for which her knowledge can be attributed. The person who sat on steering wheel after consumption of alcohol and drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner can be attributed knowledge," the judge said.
Case Title: Kartik Vaman Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 322
The Bombay High Court observed that merely filing of an FIR or cases under investigation against a person is not a valid ground for refusal of passport renewal when no cognizance has been taken by a court. A division bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla noted that merely filing an FIR or having cases under investigation does not constitute “pending” criminal proceedings under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act.
“When we look at the Office Memorandum dated 10th October 2019, it clearly stipulates that merely filing of a FIR and cases under investigation do not come within the purview of the Section 6(2)(f) of Passport Act, 1967. For a criminal proceeding to be considered as “pending”, it is only when a case is registered before any Court of law and the Court has taken cognizance of the same. This Office Memorandum is certainly binding on the Passport Authorities”, the court observed.
Maratha Reservation Challenge Case: Bombay High Court Impleads Backward Commission
Case Title: Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil & Ors. v. Chief Minister, State Of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 323
The Bombay High Court issued notice to the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC) headed by former judge Justice (retd.) Sunil Shukre, on whose recommendation the Maharashtra government decided to grant 10 per cent reservation to the Maratha Community in public service and education through the Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC) Act. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay made the MSBCC a respondent to the bunch of petitions challenging the SEBC Act which grants reservation to the Marathas.
"We allow impleadment of the Commission. We also issue notice to the Commission, made returnable on July 10," the bench also comprising Justices Girish Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla said in their order.
Case Title: The Indian Express (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Ganesh Gopinath Rane
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 324
The Bombay High Court observed that merely a transfer of an employee being exceptional and there being previous litigation between employer and employee is not a ground for the Industrial Court to stay the transfer.
Justice Sandeep Marne allowed a writ petition filed by Indian Express (P) Ltd. seeking to set aside Industrial Court's order of interim stay on the transfer and promotion of an employee observing – “Mere filing of earlier litigation is not a reason to infer existence of mala fides for interdicting the order of the transfer…It was not necessary for Petitioners to demonstrate past precedent for justifying the Respondent's transfer. Merely because the transfer is found to be exceptional, the same was not ground for learned Member to stay the same.”
Case Title: Pritam Chandulal Oswal v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 325
Even if there is a consensual relationship between a man and a woman, it does not give one a licence to exploit the partner, the Bombay High Court said while denying bail to a man booked for outraging modesty, abduction, extortion, rape and unnatural sex.
Single-judge Justice NJ Jamadar noted from the statements of various witnesses that indicated how the applicant, who had an extra-marital affair with the victim, ill-treated the victim.
"The fact that the applicant has given threat to the informant while in custody and even made an attempt to escape from the custody cannot be lost sight of. Cumulatively it appears that the applicant had sexually, physically and financially exploited the first informant. Consensual relationship, even if the submission on behalf of the applicant is taken at par, does not give a license to exploit the partner, much less in the manner in which the material on record, in the instant case, indicates," Justice Jamadar said in the order.
Case Title: Himalay Manohar Patil v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 326
The Bombay High Court granted relief to a contractor whose licence was terminated by the Palghar Zilla Parishad after he barged into the Zilla Parishad hall without authorization, where a meeting was going on.
A division bench of Justice MS Sonak and Justice Kamal Khata quashed the termination of his license observing that the action of the Zilla Parishad failed the Wednesbury test of reasonableness.
“This is a case where relevant considerations like the petitioner's consistent satisfactory performance as a licensed contractor for several years are ignored. Instead, irrelevant considerations, having no nexus with the discharge of contractual obligations, are the foundation. Even assuming that the Petitioner, on one solitary occasion, entered the meeting hall, this could hardly be the ground to terminate the Petitioner's license.”
Case Title: Naresh Goyal v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 327
The Bombay High Court extended by four weeks the temporary bail granted to Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal in a money laundering case arising out of alleged loan default of Rs. 538 Crores given to Jet Airways by Canara Bank.
Justice NJ Jamadar passed the order after Goyal submitted an affidavit stating that his doctor has suggested him to undergo a Laparoscopic Fundoplication surgery, and that he proposed to undergo the same within four weeks, and as soon as his pre-operational surgical fitness is confirmed by his doctors.
"Having perused the medical reports and the situation in which the applicant finds himself, in the backdrop of the physical and psychological ailments, aggravated on account of the demise of his wife, I deem it appropriate to extend the interim bail on medical ground...", the court observed.
Goyal has filed the present application seeking bail on both merits and medical grounds. After extending his interim bail today, the court kept the matter pending for consideration on merits.
Case Title: XYZ v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 328
The Bombay High Court allowed a married woman to terminate her over 25-weeks pregnancy so as to allow her to avail treatment against cancer.
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Neela Gokhale noted that the woman was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, while she was pregnant.
The judges noted that the medical report did not mention any risk to the life of the woman if she is permitted to under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP).
"There is nothing in the report to suggest that the procedure of MTP poses a risk to her health, save and except that she is anaemic requiring transfusion. We have considered the plea of the Petitioner No.1 as stated in the Petition. She states that she is suffering miserably from the ailment and having unbearable pain. She also states that palliative treatment might help her live longer and more comfortably," the judges recorded in their order.
"We are conscious of the right of the Petitioner No.1 to reproductive freedom, her autonomy over her body and her right of choice. In these circumstances, considering the opinion of the Medical Board, doctors of Tata Memorial Centre and the wishes of the Petitioners, we are inclined to permit her to medically terminate her pregnancy, if Petitioner No.1 continues to so desire," the bench said in the order.
Desire To Contest Election Not An Exceptional Circumstance To Stay Conviction: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sunil s/o Late Chhatrapal Kedar v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 329
The Bombay High Court refused to stay the conviction of former Congress MLA Sunil Kedar in a bank scam case of over Rs. 153 Crores observing that just because he desires to contest the upcoming Assembly election that by itself is "not sufficient to stay the conviction mechanically".
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Nagpur bench observed that mere disqualification from contesting election resulting from the conviction is not an exceptional circumstance to stay a conviction.
Case Title: Shekhar Chandrashekhar v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 330
The Bombay High Court granted bail to alleged conman Sukesh Chandra Shekhar, booked in a cheating case lodged against him in May 2015 for duping investors in a Ponzi Scheme.
Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale noted that Chandreshkhar had already spent more than seven years in jail, which is nearly more than the maximum sentence he would have to undergo, if convicted.
The judge noted that initially he had been in custody from May 29, 2015 to September 10, 2016, when he was granted bail. However, his bail was subsequently cancelled as he failed to deposit certain amounts as mandated by the Supreme Court while granting him bail. He was later shown to be arrested in another case from April 16, 2017 and was then produced in a special court for his custody in the instant case on October 9, 2017 and since then he continues to be in custody.
"Hence, the second period of incarceration can be taken as the period between October 9, 2017 till date. A rough and ready calculation of the total period of incarceration suffered by the applicant, in the context of the present case, leads to the period of about seven years and ten months. The calculation of the period cannot be disputed," Justice Pitale noted.
Case Title: Vidya Sunil Ahire and Ors. v. Commissioner of Police, Thane
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 331
The Bombay High Court dismissed the claim for compassionate appointment for the son of a deceased policeman on the ground that the employee had more than two children, making his family ineligible for the benefit of compassionate appointment.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S Patil dismissed a writ petition challenging a judgment by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which upheld the rejection of the petitioners' claim for compassionate appointment.
“Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the judgment of the Tribunal, we do not find that there is any case made out to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction”, said the court.
Case Title: Dr. Sharadchandra s/o Ganpatrao Wankhede v. Raosaheb S/o. Dadarao Danve and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 332
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected the election petitions challenging the elections of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders Raosaheb Danve and Pritam Munde in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
Single-judge Justice Sanjay Mehare noted that the prime contention in the two election petitions against Danve and Munde was that the two leaders in connivance with the respective Returning Officers tampered the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and manipulated the results of the elections.
Case Title: Aradhya Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 333
The Bombay High Court permitted a student to appear for the Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) improvement exam in July 2024 despite him being precluded from doing so by the relevant regulations.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S Patil granted permission to the petitioner who could not take the exam in July last year as he was undergoing treatment for depression and Internet Gaming Disorder “in the interest of justice”.
“The documents on record including the medical reports from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Hospital indicate that the petitioner was undergoing treatment for Internet Gaming Disorder at-least till the end of December, 2023…In the peculiar facts of the case, we find that an opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to seek improvement in his marks since he was precluded from doing so earlier for medical reasons”, the court held.
Case Title: Umesh Radhai Saroj v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 334
The Bombay High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to a man booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 for allegedly making a child record sexual activity between him and the child's mother.
Justice Manish Pitale expressed shock that these allegations were made against the mother of the child as well and decided to grant interim bail to the man so long as he does not contact the child.
“It is indeed shocking that such allegations are made against the mother of the child also. There is nothing to indicate that the mother of the child i.e. co-accused No.1 (victim's mother) has been taken into custody or that efforts are being made to take her into custody…prima facie, it appears that the applicant alongwith co-accused No.1, may have together undertaken the activities that have led to registration of the present FIR. As long as the applicant does not contact the victim child and co-operates with the investigation, this Court is inclined to consider granting interim protection.”
Bombay High Court Quashes Customs Duty Reassessment Against Patanjali Foods On Crude Palm Oil Import
Case Title: Patanjali Foods Ltd. Versus UOI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 335
The Bombay High Court has quashed the customs duty reassessment against Patanjali Foods on the import of crude palm oil for home consumption. The Bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that the rate in force would be the rate that was in force on the date and time of presentation, and in Patanjali's case, since self-assessed bills of entry were already presented before the enhanced rate came into force, the rate payable would be USD 1163 PMT. The said notification enhancing duty applied only to bills of entry presented after 21:24:11 hours on May 13, 2021, and since Patanjali's four ex-bond bills of entry were presented even before 21:00 hours, the enhanced rates would not apply to Patanjali's case.
Case Title: Konkan LNG Limited Versus The Commissioner of State Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 336
The Bombay High Court has held that the breakwater wall or accropode that are essential certainly do not qualify as plant and machinery. The breakwater wall can hardly be called “plant or machinery." Accropodes lose their identity when a breakwater wall is constructed using accropode. The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that Explanation to Section 17 also provides that “plant and machinery” should be used for making outward supply of goods or services. The breakwater wall is used for protecting the vessel from tides while unloading the LNG received and not for making outward supplies of goods or services. Therefore, the petitioner does not satisfy the condition provided in the Explanation to Section 17 to be eligible for ITC.
Case title: X. Y. Z. vs. Dean of Vitthal Sayanna Civil Hospital & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 337
In cases of married women becoming pregnant from a man other than her husband, the biological father does not suffer the pain, and social castigation as is suffered by the mother, the Bombay High Court observed on Monday while disallowing a woman to abort her more than 26 weeks pregnancy. The woman in the present case had become pregnant after she indulged in a sexual relationship with her friend while her divorce proceedings against her husband were pending. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Neela Gokhale while denying the permission to abort the foetus, as recommended by the medical board, noted that one of the grounds on which the petitioner woman sought to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy was "social stigma."
"We have given our consideration to the grounds on which the Petitioner sought permission. The main reason appears to be fear of social stigma in society coupled with her economical condition. In our view, these grounds are not included in the exceptions where the outer limit of the length of the pregnancy is lifted under the MTP Act," the bench noted.
Case title: Symbiosis Open Education Society and Symbiosis Skills and Professional University & Anr. vs. University Grants Commission & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 338
The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020, which require universities to meet specific accreditation scores or rankings and to offer programmes in conventional/traditional mode before offering them through distance or online modes. However, the Court also observed that the current accreditation criteria are inappropriate for a Skill University.
The Division Bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan observed thatthrough the requirement that ODL (Open and Distance Learning) and OL (Online) programme must also be offered in the conventional mode, with at least one batch having passed out, the HEIs (higher Educational Institutions) must demonstrate as a 'proof of concept' in offering a programme. It observed that if at least one batch has graduated from the conventional programme, it would indicate that the HEI is conducting the programme with market acceptability for it, thus ensuring the quality in the ODL and OL modes. The Court therefore held the requirements of the Regulations were a rational and reasonable policy choice.
Case title: CEAT Limited vs. Viren Mishra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 339
The Bombay High Court condoned delay in filing an appeal pertaining to a commercial suit, citing Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act which allows for the condonation of delay, even in absence of any specific provisions in the Limitation Act. The Court referred to Section 29 of the Limitation Act, stating that since the Commercial Courts Act does not specify a limitation period, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply.
The Division Bench of Nitin W. Sambre and Abhay J. Mantri stated that the plain reading of Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act indicates that the delay can be condoned even in absence of any express provisions in the Limitation Act. The Court referred to Section 29 of Limitation Act which provided that if the period of limitation is not prescribed in any special or local law, then provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act will apply. Therefore, as per Section 29(2) of Limitation Act, as the principal statute (Commercial Courts Act) does not contain any provisions on limitation period, provisions of Section 4 to 24 of Limitation Act are attracted.
Case Title: Saraswati Santosh Rathod v. Commissioner of Police Pune City and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 340
A society in which the earning member of the family is addicted, would naturally suffer economically and socially, the Bombay High Court observed recently while upholding the detention of a woman on the ground that she was manufacturing illegal liquor. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande held that the Detaining Authority, in the instant case, rightly formed its opinion that the activities of the petitioner - Saraswati Rathod, were prejudicial to maintenance of public order.
Case title: Zakaulla Khazi vs State of Goa
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 341
In a significant order, the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that a trial court while granting bail does not have any power to direct a person/accused to apply for a passport, obtain it and then surrender it to avail bail. Single-judge Justice Bharat Deshpande quashed and set aside such an "unusual" condition imposed by a trial court in Agassaim, Goa while granting bail to one Zakaulla Khazi booked in an attempt to murder case.
Case title: Ivory Properties & Hotels Private Limited vs. Vasantben Ramniklal Bhuta & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 342
The Bombay High Court set-aside an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) as the Arbitrator relied on a non-executed agreement for arriving at the decision. The Court stated that it can annul an arbitral award under Section 34 if the arbitrator adopted a non-judicial approach.
The Division Bench of B.P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresa noted that the court can interfere with an arbitral award if the interpretation of the agreement/contract by the arbitrator in unreasonable and not based on any evidence. It stated “Construction of a contract is primarily the domain of the arbitrator, unless the arbitrator were to construe a contract in a manner that no fair-minded or reasonable persons could do. Put differently, if the view taken by the arbitrator is not even a possible view to take, the award would be liable to be set aside. So also, a finding based on no evidence at all or an award that ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision, would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality.”
Case Title: ACIT Versus Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 343
The Bombay High Court at Goa, while upholding the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), has held that the assessee cannot be expected to deduct tax at source from payments that became taxable owing to a retrospective amendment. The bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes has observed that it is not open to the department to take a divergent view on the expenditure for renovation and construction of schools or temples when it has allowed the expenditure on the purchase of ambulances, which was allowed by CIT(A), based only on the reason that the expenditure was huge.
Maharashtra Govt Decision Hiking Lease Rentals In Mumbai's Bandra Not Extortionate: High Court
Case title: Vrindavan CHSL & Ors., State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 344
The Bombay High Court has held that the State Government's decision to calculate lease rent based on the value of land given in the 'Ready Reckoner' was not arbitrary. However, it ruled the Government Resolution allowing lease rent revision every 5 years, as per the value of land on date of such revision, was invalid because the original lease deed did not stipulate such revision. The Division Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan and Justice B. P. Colabawalla were considering a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State's Government Resolutions (GR), namely, 2006 GR, 2012 GR and 2018 GR. The government had granted long-term leases of government land to various lessees, located in Bandra, Mumbai.
Case Title: Cong Ling v. FRRO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 345
Observing that it is the obligatory duty of the State to ensure that the liberty of foreign nationals coming to India is not deprived except by law, the Bombay High Court on Thursday ordered the Customs Department to issue a "no objection certificate" (NOC) for facilitating the return of a Chinese national woman to her home country, who was wrongly booked in a gold smuggling case.
Single-judge Justice Prithviraj Chavan observed "The State has an obligation to protect the liberty of such foreigners who come to this country and ensured that their liberty is not deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Notwithstanding the said guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution, in this case, the Customs Department acted in a most brazen and perfunctory manner..."
Case title: Raj Shipping Agencies Ltd vs. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 346
The Bombay High Court has held that the Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP) is the authority to interpret the 'Scale of Rates' fixed by it for services, port dues and other charges under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 (MPT Act) and that its interpretation is a 'decision' and binding on the parties involved. The Division Bench of Justices K. R. Shriram and Jitendra Jain referred to the provisions of the MPT Act. It noted that Section 30 of MPT Act provides that existing rates would apply, unless altered by the competent authority i.e. TAMP. It also referred to Section 42(4) which prohibits any Board Member or authorised person of a port authority from charging any sum higher than that fixed by the TAMP. It further referred to Sections 48 and 49 MPT Act which provide that TAMP must periodically set rates and conditions for services performed by the port authority.
In view of these provisions, the Court observed that TAMP fixes the scale of rates and statement of conditions to be levied by the major ports and thus the TAMP's interpretation of the scale of rates is binding on the port authorities. It remarked “…the view expressed by TAMP is binding on respondent as it is TAMP that has interpreted the scale of rates fixed by it.”
Case Title: Smt. Sunita Purushottam Virgincar Versus ITO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 347
The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that the reassessment notice issued without complying with the pre-conditions mentioned in Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was beyond jurisdiction. The bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes has observed that the substantive rights of the original petitioner were governed by the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code. The fact that the original petitioner is governed by the Portuguese Civil Code has been duly brought before the respondents. The bench opined that mere non-mention of the same in the return of income would not give rise to a situation where the tax on the sale of property beyond the share of the original petitioner could be taxed in her hands.
Case Title: Vivek Krishnamurari Shrivastav v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 348
The Bombay High Court earlier this week held that if parole can be provided to a convict in emergency situations or for marriages in the family, it can also be granted for the convict to share "happy moments" with his family like the travelling of his child to some other country for studies. The observation came on a plea filed by a life convict, who sought parole to meet his son, who has secured admission in a university in Australia and is expected to fly out of India on July 22.
A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande noted the object of Rules governing parole and furlough provides temporary release of the prisoner, which is warranted so as to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with the family matters and also to save him from the evil effects of continuous prison life and maintain his mental balance by creating active interest in life and to enable him to remain hopeful for the future.
Case Title: A vs P
Citation: 2024 LivwLaw (Bom) 349
The Bombay High Court held that it is the choice of a wife to file Domestic Violence proceedings seeking maintenance and reliefs either before a Magistrate Court or before a Family Court where the husband has already instituted divorce proceedings. Single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar further held that in such a scenario, the High Court should not entertain applications filed by the husband to transfer the proceedings before the Magistrate to the Family Court as it cannot deprive a wife of her right to choose an appropriate forum to seek maintenance.
With these observations, the High Court had dismissed with Rs 10,000 costs, a miscellaneous application filed by a husband, who sought to transfer the DV proceedings initiated by his wife before a Magistrate Court in Sewree to the Family Court in Bandra, where he himself has instituted divorce proceedings against the wife.
Case Title: Sadhu Bhaskar Pawar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 350
The Bombay High Court while ordering the immediate release of a man, detained under a preventive detention order, said that the authorities responsible for curtailing the fundamental rights of a citizen must act with promptitude and with a sense of urgency.
A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande terming the explanation by authorities 'unsatisfactory', said in their observed, "..this delay not being convincing, has proved to be fatal to his right which is bestowed upon him by the Constitution, with an expectation that the decision on his representation shall be taken by the State Government with striking urgency. Since we are satisfied on this ground itself, that the Detention Order cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside."
Case Title: M/s. Dem Homes LLP vs. Taruvel C.H.S.L. & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 351
The Bombay High Court expressed frustration at the conduct of non-consenting members of a Cooperative Housing Society who refused to vacate their flats despite the approval of a Development Agreement by majority of the Society's members. Justice Arif Doctor while considering a Commercial Arbitration Petition filed by a developer, seeking relief against few members of the society, observed, “The docket of this Court continues to be flooded with several such matters where minority members continue to attempt to stymie redevelopment on grounds which are ex facie frivolous, untenable and contrary to the well settled position in law”
Case Title: Akshay Khandve VS State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 352
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a youth under charges of causing death by negligence (304-A of IPC) of a woman, whom he dashed while driving his motorcycle in a rash manner, however, it ordered his release under the Probation of Offenders Act (PoA) after noting that he has a "bright future." Justice Sanjay Mehare noted that the convict before him, was merely 18-year-old in April 2013, when he drove his newly brought motorcycle for the first time, and mowed down the victim woman, who was sitting outside her house. The judge, while invoking provisions of the PoA Act, said, "The peculiar facts and circumstances of this case were that the Petitioner had just completed 18 years. He was a teenager, and in the excitement and happiness, he might have driven the new vehicle for the first time and lost control. In the ordinary course, he had no reason to take the vehicle away from the road and cause an accident. His age and the way in which the accident happened are the peculiar facts to be considered in this case. He has a bright future."
Case Title: Mohammed Javed Shaikh vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 353
The Bombay High Court while pulling up the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for failing to provide either rent or an alternate accommodation to a project affected person (PAP), observed that the BMC being the richest civic body in the country cannot act arbitrarily towards its citizens. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Kamal Khata noted that the house of the petitioner before it was demolished in November 2017 and since then he was neither being paid any rent nor was he given an alternate accommodation. And instead, the BMC has been compelling the petitioner to live at Mahul village in Mumbai, a region already declared "unfit for human habitation" by the High Court in 2019, owing to the air pollution there.
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 354
The Bombay High Court while granting relief to Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case, criticised the complainant - Rajesh Kunte, a worker of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for unnecessarily protracting the trial and thwarting the Congress leader's right to speedy trial. The case pertained to Gandhi's statement made in a speech made in a political rally in Bhiwandi district during the 2014 general elections, wherein he allegedly accused RSS for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.
Single-judge Justice Prithviraj Chavan in his order pulled up Kunte for resorting to delay tactics. "…Free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done," the judge observed.
Case Title: Momin Zulfikar Kasam vs. Ajay Balkrishna Durve
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 355
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court made a grave error in holding that a transferee of rights in the property needs a separate assignment of the decree for its execution, as it overlooked the Explanation added through the 1977 amendment to Order 21 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), which clarified that a transfer of property allows the transferee to execute the decree without a separate assignment.
Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Initiated By Customs Authorities For Seizing Jewellery
Case Title: Rajendra S. Bajaj Versus The Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 356
The Bombay High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated by the customs authorities for seizing the jewellery against a US national of Indian origin, who was found to be wearing a gold chain with a gold pendant embedded with 12 diamonds. On questioning, the petitioner stated that the gold chain was purchased in 1989 by him from a jeweller in the US for around USD 25,000, which, at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of his arrival in Mumbai from New York, i.e., May 6, 2007, would work out to about Rs. 10,02,500/-. The bench of Justices K. R. Shriram and Jitendra Jain has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani, in which it was held that foreign tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value, provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them and it is a prerequisite at the time of making endorsements on the passport.
Case Title: M/s. TML Business Services Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 357
The Bombay High Court has observed that on reading Section 11 of the Settlement Scheme, the defect notice is issued when there is a shortfall in making the payment and not when an applicant has paid the correct amount. The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain noted that the amount payable was Rs. 66,17,057, whereas the petitioner paid Rs. 8,46,84,821, which is an excess payment and not a short payment. Therefore, even on this count, a defect notice is contrary to Section 11 of the Settlement Scheme. The bench therefore directed the sales tax department to refund Rs. 10.70 crore to the petitioner.
Case Title: Royal Bitumen Private Limited, Mumbai Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 358
The Bombay High Court has held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) would cease to have jurisdiction to issue any notice under Section 148A(b) and to take further actions under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Act, outside the faceless assessment. The bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that the JAO did not have the authority to issue the reassessment notices in view of the faceless scheme notified under Section 151A of the Income Tax Act by the Central Government in the notification dated March 29, 2022.
Case Title:Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan vs. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 359
The Bombay High Court has held that the investigating agency under the Unlawful Activitives Prevention Act (UAPA) cannot seek an extension in filing the chargesheet citing the lack of sanction. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Gauri Godse held that for filing a chargesheet, there is no requirement of a sanction from the competent authority and the same can be obtained subsequently. The judges further held that in such a scenario, an investigating agency cannot seek extension of time to file chargesheet on the ground that it has to obtain the mandatory sanction from the competent authority.
Case Title: Madhura Mukul Gandhe & Ors. vs. The Hon'ble Cabinet Minister for Co-Operation Maharashtra State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 360
The Bombay High Court observed that Section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) promotes the concept of 'open membership' and thus, the rejection of membership by a Co-operative Bank based on alleged motives to disrupt its administration, despite the applicants fulfilling all conditions mandated by the MCS Act, was deemed to be a violation of Section 23 of the MCS Act. Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar dealt with a plea challenging the order of the Cabinet Minister for Co-operation, Maharashtra, by which the decision of the Ahmednagar Merchant's Co-operative Bank Ltd. to refuse its membership to the petitioners was upheld.
Investment Allowance Available On Exchange Rate Fluctuation: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. Tolani Ltd. Versus DCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 361
The Bombay High Court has held that investment allowance is available on exchange rate fluctuations. The bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Ambika Mills Ltd., in which it was held that investment allowance, consequent to exchange rate fluctuation, would be allowable.
Section 148A(d) Order Passed Without Section 151 Sanction Is Illegal: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Umang Mahendra Shah Versus Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 362
The Bombay High Court has held that if an order is passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act in the absence of an appropriate sanction in terms of the provisions of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, the order and the consequent notice under Section 148 would be required to be declared illegal. The bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that a sanction for passing an order under Section 148A(d) was required to be obtained under clause (ii) of Section 151 as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year for the proceedings to be adopted under Section 148A and thereafter under Section 148 of the Act. However, the sanction was obtained under clause (i) of Section 151.
JAO Not Empowered To Issue Section 148A(b) Notice Under Faceless Assessment: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Venus Jewel Versus ACIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 363
The Bombay High Court has held that it was not permissible for the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue a notice under Section 148A(b), as the same would amount to a breach of the provisions of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act. The bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that the notice was invalid and bad in law being issued by the JAO as the same was not in accordance with Section 151A of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Pawan Jain vs Sejal Jain
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 364
A husband convicted for causing the dowry death of his wife stands disqualified from inheriting the property of the deceased wife as provided under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Bombay High Court held. Single-judge Justice Nijamoodin Jamadar rejected the argument of the Testamentary Department which opined that a person convicted for causing dowry death (under section 304-B of the IPC) cannot be equated with a 'murderer' as prescribed under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, as the law only disqualifies a person convicted for murder (under section 302 of the IPC). The Court emphasised that Section 25 of the Act disqualified a person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder. This expression, it said, must be construed as to advance the object of the Act, which is to disallow devolution of property upon deceased's murderer.
Bombay High Court Criticizes Maharashtra Govt For Its "Mindset" To Curtail Liberty Of Undertrial
Case Title: Kartik Mohan Prasad vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 365
The Bombay High Court criticised the Maharashtra Police for its "mindset" to curtail the liberty of undertrials, who have served more than half of the possible maximum punishment they may be handed over after conviction. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale said in a democracy the police cannot give an impression that it is a Police State. The observations were made while granting bail to one Kartik Prasad, booked under charges of fraud, forgery and the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) (MPID) Act. The bench was irked with the State for urging the court to stay its bail order for four weeks so that it can appeal against the same in the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Aswini Jitendra Kable v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 366
The Bombay High Court has held that Maharashtra government's decision exempting private unaided schools from providing 25% quota in Class I or Pre-school for children of disadvantaged sections, if there is a government-run or aided school within 1 km radius of that private school, is "unconstitutional". The decision was taken by the State this year by amending the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar set-aside the Rules as unconstitutional and ultra-vires to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
Case Title: Vinod Ganpatrao Nichat vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 367
In the conservative Indian society, a mother may concoct a story of her own molestation but would not jeopardise the future of her daughter by falsely implicating someone in a sexual harassment case, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held. Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap while rejecting the argument of a man, convicted for sexually assaulting a girl, said that even in case of enmity, a family will not jeopardise the future of their minor girl by implicating the accused in a false case. The judge pointed out that the parents of the victim in the instant case had no reason to falsely implicated the accused.
MSME Council Has Power To Decide Issue Of Its Own Jurisdiction Under MSMED Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/S Bharat Kolkata Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd vs. Goa Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 368
The Bombay High Court has observed that the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has the authority to determine its jurisdiction over disputes under Section 18 of the Micro, Small Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED). Single-judge Bharat P. Deshpande was considering a challenge to a notice issued by the Nodal Officer for Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council dated January 1, 2024, which stated that as conciliation between the petitioner and the respondent was not possible, the Council invoked its authority under Section 18 (3) of MSMED Act to refer the matter to arbitration.
Case Title: Parvez Vaid vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 369
The Bombay High Court has held that the Central Government under its powers has declared underworld gangster Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, a terrorist in his "individual capacity" and thus any association of any person with him or the D-Company, would not attract punishment for being member of a terrorist organisation under section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande granted bail to two men booked for their alleged links with D-Company and for their involvement in a drugs seizure case. "Section 20 prescribes punishment for being a member of a terrorist gang or organisation. In the instant case, the material on which reliance is placed, is in the form of Section 164 statement, referring to Parvez Vaid (petitioner) as a Member of D-gang. This, in our view, prima facie, would not attract the offence under section 20, as by the amendment in Schedule IV, Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, has been declared as a terrorist in individual capacity, and therefore, any association with him on the pretext that a person belongs to D-gang/Dawood gang will not attract the provisions of Section 20," the judges held in their July 11 order.
Case Title: Shankar Vithoba Desai And Ors Vs Gauri Associates And Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 370
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that individual members of the Society cannot be considered signatories to the arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, as they do not individually participate in its formation or execution of arbitration clause. The bench was dealing with a plea filed by 11 members of a housing society, who filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 concerning disputes arising from a Development Agreement between the Society and the Developer. The Developer challenged the legitimacy of the individuals issuing the notice on behalf of the Society. The Court noted that the agreement clearly provided for arbitration by either a sole arbitrator appointed by mutual consent of the parties or, in the absence of such consent, by an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators, with each party appointing one arbitrator and these arbitrators mutually selecting a presiding arbitrator. It rejected the argument put forth by the Applicants that the term "the society" should be construed to encompass all its members, including 40 additional individuals besides the Society and the Developer. Such an interpretation, according to the Court, would distort the intended bilateral nature of the arbitration agreement.
Courts Can't Constantly Interfere And Micro-Manage Arbitral Proceedings: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ambrish H. Soni vs Mr Chetan Narendra Dhakan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 371
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor has held that the court cannot constantly interfere with and micromanage proceedings which are pending before Arbitral Tribunals. The bench held that the scope of judicial interference under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act is limited in nature. In the detailed order, the bench held that the court: (i) will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Arbitral Tribunal and substitute its own view except when the Arbitral Tribunal has acted arbitrarily, or capriciously or where the Arbitral Tribunal has ignored the well-settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions; (ii) cannot reassess the material based on which the Tribunal has arrived at its decision so long as the Tribunal has considered the material and had taken a plausible view, (iii) cannot interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal, if the discretion of the Tribunal had been exercised in a reasonable and judicious manner, solely on the ground that would have come to a contrary conclusion, (iv) that matters of interpretation of the provisions of a contract lie primarily within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal and (v) cannot constantly interfere with and micro manage proceedings which are pending before Arbitral Tribunals.
Case Title: Manish Rameshchandra Shah vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 372
A person in the business of shares, forwarding certain WhatsApp messages concerning details of shares that can be dormant, cannot be booked for duping shareholders, the Bombay High Court observed while granting bail to a stock broker, booked under charges of forgery and fraud. Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale while dealing with the bail application filed by one Manish Shah noted that he had only shared a few messages on WhatsApp with the main accused about details of certain shares of the complainant company. "Being a stock broker and in the business of shares, merely because the applicant was in touch with accused No.1 and he forwarded certain WhatsApp messages concerning details of shares that could be said to be dormant, in itself cannot be the basis of claiming that the applicant had a major role to play in duping the shareholders (victims)," Justice Pitale said in the order.
Case Title: Mahesh Naik vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 373
The Bombay High Court has said that every police officer in each case, before making any arrests, must inform the person to be arrested, in writing, the grounds of his arrest and only then proceed to effect arrest, as the same is the law of the land as laid down by the Supreme Court of India. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande granted bail to one Pandurang Naik, who was arrested on February 22, 2024, in connection to a cheating case.The judges noted that Naik was arrested on February 22 at 6:00 PM and only his mother was informed about his arrest. He was produced before a court for remand on the following day. He was subsequently charge-sheeted. However, Naik petitioned the bench seeking bail on the limited ground that the due procedure was not followed by the suburban Malad police station in Mumbai by giving in writing the grounds of his arrest. The bench referred to the rulings of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India and also in Prabir Purkayastha vs State (NCT of Delhi) cases, wherein the apex court has held that the grounds of arrest must be given by the arresting authority, to the person being arrested, in writing.
Case Title: Kumar Goraknath Shinde vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 374
In a move that can halt 'horse-trading' tactics resorted to by independent candidates in the Municipal Councils, a five-judge bench of the Bombay High Court held that the post-poll alliances (post-poll Aghadi) formed by independent candidates after the elections, will be considered as pre-poll alliance and the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 will be applicable for all purposes for all meetings as a member of such Aghadi till the term of the Council. The five-judge bench headed by Justice Nitin Jamdarhas held that if any such elected independent councillor joins any alliance after the election results are declared, such an alliance will be considered a pre-poll alliance, which will not be limited to subject committees.
Case Title: Nirav Raval vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 375
Mere presence as customers in a bar where women are dancing in an obscene manner, will not attract offences of obscenity or abetting any crime/obscene act, the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Shyam Chandak pronounced the ruling while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) against four Ahemdabad-based men, who were booked from a Bar in South Mumbai for allegedly giving money to a waiter to blow the notes on the women, who were dancing there in an obscene manner.
Case Title: Darshan Kumar Vilayatiram Khanna vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 376
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that allegations of ill-treatment made by a man against his own family members will not fall within the ambit of section 498A (domestic violence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale noted that in the instant case, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by a woman along with her husband, against her in-laws.
Case title: Govinda Goga Donde & anr. vs. Mayur Ramesh Bora & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 377
The Bombay High Court has held that under Section 9-A CPC (now repealed by the CPC (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2018), a Trial Court cannot frame an issue which has the effect of disposing of the suit only in part. The Court observed that Section 9A CPC enables any party to the suit to raise an objection of jurisdiction at the time of hearing of the application of interim relief. It stated that it is necessary to interpret the term 'suit' consistently throughout Section 9-A. It noted that the phrase 'made in any suit' in the first part of sub-section (1) refers to the application for interim relief being made in the context of the entire suit. Therefore, the expression 'such a suit' in the later part of suit as well.
Case Title: Surekha Luxman Sonovane vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 378
In a first, the Bombay High Court has ordered all educational institutions in Maharashtra to provide proper first aid and medical facilities for students and employees of the schools and colleges within the college premises, so as to provide immediate possible treatment in cases of emergencies. A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Milind Sathaye noted that educational institutes in larger cities like Mumbai have a substantial strength of students and staff members, who spend a considerable portion of their day away from their homes.
"Medical emergencies can occur due to the commuting requirements (especially in Mumbai) and diverse activities within these institutions. While some institutions may have their arrangements or provide ad-hoc responses by transporting patients to the nearest hospital during emergencies, delays in timely medical treatment can lead to fatal results," the judges said.
Case Title: PCIT Versus G.K. Developers
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 379
The Bombay High Court has held that the expression 'built up area' introduced with effect from April 1, 2005, could not be applied retrospectively, and the Tribunal was justified in holding that up to April 1, 2005, the expression 'built up area' would exclude the balcony area. The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that for the first time, the Legislature has defined the expression 'built up area' in Section 80IB(10) by introducing clause (a) to Section 80IB(14) by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 with effect from April 1, 2005.
Case Title: Ajay Melwani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 380
The Bombay High Court on Monday while refusing to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against a businessman observed that ignorance of law is not an excuse for breaking it. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale refused to quash an FIR lodged against one Ajay Melwani, who was booked under relevant provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, for exporting a banned chemical to a company based in Italy. The bench while dismissing his plea, even refused to accept his argument that he was unaware of the notification issued by the Indian Government mandating a 'no objection certificate' for permitting export or production of the said product.
Case title: KC Bokadia vs CBFC
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 381
The Bombay High Court on Monday cleared the decks for the release of film "Teesri Begum" after the makers agreed to remove "Jai Shri Ram" slogan from its climax scene. The makers of the film have agreed with the suggestion of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to remove the slogan "Jai Shri Ram" from a scene of the film, wherein the main character, a Muslim man, upon being attacked by his Hindu wives, recites "Jai Shri Ram."
Case title: The State of Maharashtra & ors. vs. Mr. Baban Yeshwant Ghuge
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 382
The Bombay High Court held that gratuity benefits of a State government employee can be withheld under Rule 130 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 if there is a criminal appeal pending against the employee. The gratuity is payable only on completion of 'judicial proceedings' i.e until final orders are passed in the criminal appeal.
The High Court referred to Rule 130, which provides that a provisional pension should be provided to the employee during the pendency of departmental or judicial proceedings. However, under the said rule gratuity cannot be paid 'until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon'. The Court stated that this expression indicates that the passing of the final order has a material bearing on the employee's entitlement to receive gratuity.
Case title: Pramod Shendre vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 383
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday quashed the FIR lodged against an army man and a doctor who allegedly outraged sentiments of Muslims and asked few men to "either say Vande Mataram or go to Pakistan". A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadiand Vrushali Joshi however lamented that now-a-days everybody wants to show that his or her religion or God is the Supreme. It emphasised that India is a secular country and people should respect each other's religions.
“We are constrained to observe that now-a-days people have become more sensitive about their religions, may be more than before and everybody wants to impress as to how his religion or God is Supreme. We are staying in the democratic secular country, where everybody should respect the religion, caste, creed etc. of another. But at the same time, we would also say that if one person says that his religion is Supreme, then the other person may not immediately react. There are ways and means to react on such sensitive issues," the bench observed.
Case title: M/s. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs. Mumbai Mahanagar Palika & anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 384
The Bombay High Court has observed failure to protest the imposition of alleged excess octroi duty by the Municipal Corporation is a relevant circumstance in deciding against ordering any refunds. Further, the Court stated that if the petitioner cannot establish that the burden of any excess duty was not passed on to its customers, granting refund in such a case would result in 'unjust enrichment'.
Case Title: Sandip Talande vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 385
In a significant ruling, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has recently held that commission of a sexual act is not mandatory for one to be roped in as an accused in a gang rape case and instead commission of a sexual act by even one person (among the accused) is enough to convict the others (in the group) for gang rape. Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap while hearing appeals filed by four men, convicted for gang raping a woman, noted that while only two accused ravished the victim, the other two had overpowered her friend and do not let him save her.
Case Title: Shyamsunder Agarwal vs Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 386
The Bombay High Court recently closed a litigation wherein officers of the Crime Branch of Mumbai Police were accused of barging into the house of a resident of plush Juhu area in the midnight. A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Shyam Chandak had ordered the Crime Branch, Mumbai Police to respond to a plea filed by one Shyamsunder Agarwal, who alleged that around 12 policemen barged into his house on January 30 this year, at 12:00 AM to 03:00 AM.
Case Title: EBIX Cash Pvt. Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 387
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice R. G. Avachat and Justice Neeraj P. Dhote has held that an arbitration agreement survives the termination of the main contract facilitating the resolution of disputes arising under or in connection with the contract. Therefore, the bench dismissed a writ petition noting that the dispute was arbitral and fell within the ambit of the arbitration clause.
Case Details: Om Shakti Mahila Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit vs Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 388
The Bombay High Court recently observed that the civic authorities must keep regular and surprise checks on private contractors or self-help groups, providing cooked food to school students under the 'Mid-Day Meals' Scheme so that the children of the marginalised section do not suffer in silence and pain.
A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Kamal Khata while upholding the termination of a self-help group, which provided poor quality food to students of 12 schools, noted that the Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation (MBMC) had granted several opportunities to the petitioner - Om Shakti Mahila Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit - to provide better quality food to the students. The judges noted that on several occasions, the students went hungry only because the food served was not of good quality or was full of worms.
Case title: Hemprabha co-operative Housing society Ltd. vs. Kishore C. Waghela & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 389
The Bombay High Court held that a Co-operative Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving co-operative societies' seeking recovery of property and mesne profits, under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act). The Court stated that such disputes fall under the category of 'management of the Society' and therefore come within the scope of Section 91.
Case Details: Hardik Shah vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 390
Asking a woman to clean the house and show the same on a WhatsApp video call to the in-laws is a sadist manner of ill-treatment, the Bombay High Court said recently while refusing to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed under section 498-A against five members of a family.
Case Details: Lalchand Bhojwani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 391
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday quashed a rape case against a 73-year-old man, who allegedly raped the victim for 31 long years.
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale after perusing the First Information Report (FIR) held that there was a consensual relationship.
Case Title: Hemant Surgical Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 392
The Bombay High Court has held that it is not mandatory for assessment orders to contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of each and every query raised.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that since there is no discussion or finding on the issue of hazardous waste in the order, the respondent department should be taken as having accepted the petitioner's explanation.
AO Ought To Verify Details Before Initiating Reassessment Based On Faceless Information: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Benaifer Vispi Patel Versus ITO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 393
The Bombay High Court has held that the Assessing Officer (AO) ought to verify details before initiating reassessment based on faceless information.
The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the Assessing Officers need to bear in mind that when the Assessing Officer intends to resort to an action under Section 148 on the basis of information, which is derived under Section 135A of the Act, that is in the electronic form, unless the Assessing Officer has verified such other relevant materials gathered either from the assessee or otherwise available.
Case title: Khaled Gomaeai Mohammad Hasan vs. State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 394
Coming down heavily on a 'refugee' for overstaying in India, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday asked a Yemen national to go to Pakistan or some other Gulf countries instead of overstaying here.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan said the refugee cannot take 'undue advantage' of India's liberal attitude.
Case Details: Aniket Dhatrak vs Shalaka Dhatrak
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 395
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court held that the 'right to seek divorce' is a personal right of an individual and the same cannot be extended to the family members of a person, even after his or her death.
A division bench of Justices Mangesh Patil and Shailesh Brahme delivered the judgment while dismissing an appeal filed by the mother and brothers of a Pune-based man, who sought to pursue the mutual consent divorce proceedings against the man's wife, after he died during the Covid19 outbreak.
Case title: Global Radiance Ship Management PTE Ltd. & Termoil Ltd. in the matter between Kroll Trustee Services Ltd. vs. M. V. Aeon
Aniket Dhatrak vs Shalaka Dhatrak, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 396
While dealing with a Commercial Admiralty Suit, the Bombay High Court observed that if a party has an 'interest' in a ship/vessel or proceeds of its sale, then it can file an interim application for intervention in the suit.
Justice N.J. Jamadar stated that Admiralty Rules, 2018 made under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 permit such intervention in the context of an action in rem, where a vessel is sold and the sale proceeds is held for the benefit of all creditors
Case Title: RNA Royal Park Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. vs The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 397
The Bombay High Court on Friday while directing the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to constitute an Animal Welfare Committee (AWC) for a society in suburban Mumbai, to deal with the menace of stray dogs, said courts cannot assess if the dogs are aggressive and as to what makes the animals aggressive.
A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Kamal Khata said it will not get into the issue of what triggers the dogs to become aggressive or how can a dog's aggression be assessed, as argued by dog feeders of the society in Kandivali.
Case Title: Pramod Purabiya vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 398
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Friday held that if a man arranges a rented house for a woman, the same will not establish his 'intent to marry' her but displays his intent to keep her 'easily available' for his pleasures.
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale refused to accept the argument of a man that he had arranged a rented place for the complainant woman, which established his 'intention' to marry her.
Case title: Yusuf Yunus Kantharia vs. Bombay Housing And Area Development Authority and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 399
The Bombay High Court came down on the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) for failing to compensate an individual whose land was acquired by it 36 years ago. The Court ruled that this inaction constitutes a violation of the individual's constitutional and human rights.
The Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Kamal Khata expressed their frustrations that despite 36 years having lapsed since the acquisition, the respondent authorities have not traced the acquisition records and have not carried out any exercise to determine the compensation amount.
Case Title: Indo Allied Protein Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Food , Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Dept
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 400
In a reprieve for the Maharashtra government, the Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed petitions questioning the tender process initiated by the State to implementing its "Anandacha Shidha" (Kit of Joy) a scheme by which the State would be distributing subsidised food kits to 1.7 crores beneficiaries for the upcoming Ganesh Chaturthi festival.
As per this scheme, which was first introduced for last year's Diwali festival, the food kits comprising of 1 Kg each of Suji (Semolina), Sugar, Chana Daal (Chickpea Lentils) and Soyabean Oil, will be made available at Rs 100. The scheme was also extended for Gudi Padwa (Marathi New Year) and now the government has announced that the said food kits will also be distributed for the Ganesh Chaturthi festival.
Case Title: Hemant Surgical Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 401
The Bombay High Court has held that it is not mandatory for assessment orders to contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of each and every query raised. The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that since there is no discussion or finding on the issue of hazardous waste in the order, the respondent department should be taken as having accepted the petitioner's explanation.
Case Title: Naveed Abdul Saeed Mulla vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 402
The Bombay High Court has dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Maharashtra Government's 'Ladki Bahin Yojana' and 'Yuva Karya' schemes. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar while dismissing the petition remarked, “We are not moved by what you are saying. This is a speech for roads and not courts.”
No Provision Under CPC To Extend Time For Filing Written Statement Due To Pendency Of Miscellaneous Application: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Federal Brands Ltd. vs. Cosmos Premises Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 403
The Goa Bench of Bombay High Court observed the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) does not provide for any exclusion or extension of time period during which a miscellaneous application was pending while calculating the condonation of delay in filing a written statement.
Cases Filed Before July 1, 2024, Will Be Investigated As Per CrPC And Not BNSS: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Chowgule and Company Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 404
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court's Goa bench recently held that in cases lodged before July 1, 2024, the provisions of the now repealed Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) will apply to the investigations and not the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Single-judge Justice Bharat Deshpande rejected the argument that since the new law has come in, the cases lodged prior to July 1, will have to be investigated as per the newly enforced BNSS.
No Premeditation: Bombay High Court Quashes Attempt To Murder Charge Against Man Booked For Pouring Rat Poison In Wife's Mouth During Quarrel
Case Title: Namdeo Chormule vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 405
The Bombay High Court has acquitted a man from charges of attempt to murder holding that his act of pouring poison in the mouth of his wife during a quarrel was not 'premeditated' and thus can be punished under charges of attempt to culpable homicide.
Single-judge Justice Sarang Kotwal while acquitting one Namdeo Chormule noted that he was convicted by a court in Solapur for pouring rat poison in his wife's mouth. However, the judge opined that instead of convicting Chormule under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the trial court could have convicted him for a lesser offence of attempt to culpable homicide (section 308 of IPC).
Case Title: Nitin Upadhyay vs State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 406
The Bombay High Court on Monday said that merely pulling hair or pushing a woman during a quarrel does not amount to outraging her modesty as there must be an 'intention' to outrage her modesty. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan refused to direct Mumbai Police to invoke section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against five men - Abhijit Karanjule, Mayuresh Kulkarni, Ishwar Gunjal, Avinash Pandey and Laxman Pant - all followers of Godman Dhirendra Shastri alias Bageshwar Baba.
Case Title: Sneha Akshay Garg & Anr. v. Nil
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 407
A newly married couple, unable to reside together for various reasons, itself is mental agony, said the Bombay High Court recently, while holding that in cases where the wife and husband have agreed to mutual divorce and there being no scope for reconciliation, the mandatory six months cooling off period can be waived off.
Single-judge Justice Gauri Godse dissolved a marriage between a couple after noting that the couple despite filing divorce by mutual consent, was compelled to undergo the mental agony of keeping the proceedings pending for further six months due to the cooling off period.
Case Title: B. G. Exploration and Production Versus The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 408
The Bombay High Court has quashed the show cause notice, which was in a printed format with only the period, date, and time filled up and did not give details of the information or documents required to be furnished.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that before passing best judgment assessment, Section 23(2) provides that if the registered dealer fails to comply with the terms of any notice issued under the sub-section, the Commissioner shall assess to the best of his judgement the amount of tax due from the assessee. In the show cause notice, no details of documents required to be produced have been given. The pre-conditions required to pass the best judgment assessment are not satisfied.
Case Title: Sujith Kumar Rangaswami (Criminal Appeal 1268 of 2023)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 409
The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to five men, alleged members of Hindu right-wing organisations - 'Sanatan Sanstha' and 'Hindu Janjagruti Samiti' arrested in 2018 for their alleged conspiracy to explode bombs at the then ongoing Sunburn festival in Pune district to terrorise the participants.
A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande while granting bail noted that though the allegation is that the five men - Sujit Rangaswami, Amit Baddi, Ganesh Miskin, Shrikant Pangarkar and Bharat Kurane, conspired to execute bomb blasts in the ongoing festival, yet the festival concluded successfully.
Case Title: Shri Madhukar Mahadev Patil vs. Sangli Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 410
The Bombay High Court observed that there is no provision in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) which empowers the Cooperative Court to return a plaint before an appropriate court when the Cooperative Court has no inherent jurisdiction to try the concerned dispute. It further observed that even though the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is applicable to a Cooperative Court to a limited extent, this does not make the Cooperative Court a 'civil court'.
Case Title: Samad Habib Mithani vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 1241 of 2014)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 411
The Bombay High Court recently held that merely because the complaint states that the in-laws supported the husband in subjecting her to cruelty would not mean that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande quashed a case of cruelty against four members of a family, all in-laws of a woman, who had lodged a section 498A complaint against them including her husband, in March 2014.
Case Title: Divvela Ramaiah and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 412
The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Regulation 10 of the 'Institute of Actuaries of India (Admission as Member and Issuance of Certificate of Practice) Regulations 2017.' Regulation 10 sets out the qualifications required to obtain a 'Certificate of Practice' (CoP). This CoP allows a person to practice as an Actuary under the Actuaries Act, of 2006.
Denying Furlough Just Because Convict Is Unmarried Is Not A Good Ground: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Prahlad Feku Gupta vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 413
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently observed that the jail authorities cannot deny furlough or parole leaves to a convict merely on the ground that s/he is young and is unmarried and thus might flee and not return to the prison.
A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Vrushali Joshi on August 1, ordered the Special Inspector General, Prisons, Nagpur, to consider the application filed by one Prahlad Gupta, 26, a murder convict, who sought furlough leave to meet his family in Uttar Pradesh. The judges, even junked the argument of the jail authorities that since the convict is an 'unmarried' person, he may flee while on furlough.
Ghatkopar Billboard Collapse: Bombay High Court Denies Relief To Accused Bhavesh Bhinde
Case Title: Bhavesh Bhinde vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 414
The Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed the petition for release filed by Bhavesh Bhinde, the owner of the giant hoarding that collapsed in Ghatkopar area of Mumbai amid heavy rains and winds, killing 17 persons and injuring around 70, on May 13. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande passed the order saying it found no merits in the case.
Case Title: Eka Academy Private Limited Versus Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 415
The Bombay High Court has directed to constitute a committee to decide the declaration that was filed by the petitioner on 30th December 2019 and, on or before 30th September 2024, dispose of the declaration in accordance with law.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that the amount payable has been quantified before 30th June 2019. The scheme has the twin objectives of liquidation of past disputes pertaining to central excise and service tax on the one hand and disclosure of unpaid taxes on the other hand. The primary focus, as succinctly put across by the Finance Minister in her budget speech, is to unload the baggage of pending litigations in respect of service tax and central excise from the pre-GST regime so that the business can move on.
Case Title: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd vs. Jindal Drugs Limited And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 416
The Bombay High Court has held that the activity of relabelling products does not constitute 'manufacturing' under the Electricity Act, 2003. It stated that manufacturing under the Electricity Act would require conversion of raw materials into a fresh product using electricity-powered machines and thus relabelling would not fall within such activity.
Case Title: Yakub Baig Trust Panvel Erstwhile Mominpada Masjid Yakub Baig Trust vs. Ganu Mahadu Gaikar & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 417
The Bombay High Court has held that an exemption order granted to a Trust under Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (BT&AL) is not sufficient to claim exemption of the land from the provisions of the Act. The land must be included in Schedule I of the BT&AL Act to claim such exemption.
The Court also observed that Section 32-G of BT & AL is a deeming provision and vests title of the land being cultivated by a tenant as on 'tillers day' (01.04.1957) and thus any subsequent exemption granted to the trust will have no effect on the tenant's rights.
Principle Of Denial Of Relief On Grounds Of Laches Applicable To PIL: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Govind Kondiba Tanpure & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 418
The Bombay High Court observed that the principle of denying relief on grounds of delays and laches is applicable to Public Interest Litigation (PIL). It emphasized that in the absence of an explanation for the delay from the petitioners, the court may refuse to exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Gandharva Dhaneshwar Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 419
The Bombay High Court observed that Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("LARR Act") can only be invoked if the application under the provision challenges the Collector's award. It stated that the contents of the application must indicate it is an application under Section 64 of the Act.
Case Title: Shri. Narayan Damodar Thakur & anr. vs. Shri. Madanlal Mohanlal Malpani
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 420
The Bombay High Court observed that in commercial tenancy, if a tenant permits an outsider to use their shop to do business, subletting can be presumed. It emphasized that beneficial legislation like the Rent Control Act should be misused by the tenant and thus in cases of misuse of tenancy protections, subletting should be inferred.
Income Tax Additions Can't Be Made On The Basis Of Superficial Inquiry: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Versus SVD Resins & Plastics Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 421
The Bombay High Court has directed to constitute a committee to decide the declaration that was filed by the petitioner on 30th December 2019 and, on or before 30th September 2024, dispose of the declaration in accordance with law.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that the amount payable has been quantified before 30th June 2019. The scheme has the twin objectives of liquidation of past disputes pertaining to central excise and service tax on the one hand and disclosure of unpaid taxes on the other hand. The primary focus, as succinctly put across by the Finance Minister in her budget speech, is to unload the baggage of pending litigations in respect of service tax and central excise from the pre-GST regime so that the business can move on.
Case Title: Dattatray Shrikrushna Shejole vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 422
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a man booked in a rape case observing that Article 21 of the Constitution of India will apply irrespective of the nature of the crime.
Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke in her order passed on August 6 noted that the accused was arrested on December 15, 2021, and was in custody since then. The judge further noted that an earlier bail application was withdrawn by the applicant with liberty to file a fresh plea if the trial did not commence within six months.
Case Title: Kairos Properties Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 423
While observing that the Scheme notified by the Central Government does not envisage exclusion of provisions of Section 148A as the procedure outlined within the said provisions are inextricably linked to Section 148, the Bombay High Court quashed the entire exercise undertaken by the Jurisdiction AO u/s 148A outside the faceless mechanism.
The Division Bench comprising Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that “Section 148A in its object, intent and purpose is inextricably connected with the assessment, re-assessment or re-computation, for which a notice u/s 148 may be issued. Any other view would mean that the requirement to adopt the faceless procedure under the Scheme is a mere ministerial requirement for issuance of the notice. Such a reading would not be in conformity with the objectives spelt out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 151A(1)”.
Case Title: Shailaja Nitin Mishra vs Nitin Kumar Mishra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 424
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that merely donating eggs or sperm by a person doesn't entitle them to claim any parental rights on the children born through the In vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment.
Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav pronounced the verdict while dismissing an argument of a woman, who "voluntarily" donated her oocyte (eggs) for her sister and brother-in-law, who couldn't conceive naturally, and later claimed she was the "biological" mother of the twin girls born through surrogacy.
Case Title: Cheftalk Food and Hospitality Services vs. ITO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 425
Finding that the AO has arbitrarily exercised jurisdiction by granting an extension of only two days to the Assessee in filing reply to the SCN, the Bombay High Court quashed the assessment and remanded the proceedings for passing fresh assessment order u/s 144 read with Section 144B.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that “approach on the part of the Respondents was clearly in breach of the SOP, which has also resulted in breach of the principles of natural justice, which guaranteed to the Petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the SCN under the procedure prescribed, in undertaking the assessment proceedings”.
VSV Scheme Is Non-Tax Benefit Applicable Even To Medium Enterprise, Clarifies Bombay High Court
Case Title: Marine Electricals India vs. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 426
While granting benefit under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas I-Relief for MSMEs Scheme' (VSV Scheme) to the Assessee, even when it was re-classified as 'not an MSME', the Bombay High Court held that even though the Petitioner was re-classified as “not an MSME” for a period of three years from May 09, 2023, it was entitled to avail of all non-tax benefits available to a Medium Enterprise.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that the VsV scheme proposed to refund 95% of the liquidated damages deducted under contracts entered into with the Government/PSUs on the fulfilment of the specified eligibility conditions.
Case Title: Shridhar Kashinath Bhagat vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 427
The Bombay High Court recently said that the Mumbai Trans Harbour Sea Link alias Atal Setu is one of India's premier infrastructure projects undertaken after incurring expenditure of thousands of crores and thus it cannot be put to risk due to operations of stone crushing and blasting near the bridge.
Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne therefore, upheld the June 28, 2024 order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panvel ordering closure of these stone crusher plants, under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on the ground that the operations near the Atal Setu have resulted in cracks on the bridge.
Case Title: Sanjay Gowardhan Wakde vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 428
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently while acquitting a man convicted for raping a mentally and physically disabled minor girl, said courts cannot convict a person merely on the basis of sympathy and moral considerations.
Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap noted various lapses on part of the prosecution to prove the fact that the appellant convict was the one, who raped the minor victim and thus acquitted him.
Which Court Can Extend Arbitration Deadlines? Bombay High Court Provides Clarification
Case Title: Sheela Chowgule vs Vijay V. Chowgule and ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 429
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes has held that when the High Court constitutes an arbitral tribunal, the High Court holds the jurisdiction to extend the time for completing the arbitration process.
Further, the bench clarified that if the tribunal was constituted through an agreement between the parties, the application for extending time can be addressed by the principal civil court with original jurisdiction, which includes both the district court and the High Court.
Case Title: Hemant Mahipatray Shah and another vs Anand Upadhyay and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 429
The Bombay High Court has quashed the issuance of process served on the directors of the company, M/s. Hubtown Ltd., for offenses punishable under sections 276B and 278B of the Income Tax Act for delay in depositing the TDS as the TDS deducted by the company had already been deposited with interest as provided under section 201(1A).
The bench of Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan has observed that the department has chosen not to invoke the provisions of Section 221 read with Section 201 (1) of the Income Tax Act to impose penalties against the company or the principal officer of the company for “failure to pay the whole or any part of tax, as required by or under this Act."
Income Declaration Scheme 2016, Assessee Deposited Amount, Dept. Claim Erroneous; Bombay High Court
Case Title: Arihant Developers Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 432
The Bombay High Court has directed the department to issue certificates as the assessee deposited all amounts under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS). The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that the petitioner or assessee in fact complied with all the requirements under the IDS, and the appropriate amount of tax deposited is sufficient to accept the case of the petitioner.
Thus, the assessment order cannot be held to be legal. It would be required to be quashed and set aside on the department's own, showing that the petitioner had deposited all the amounts under the IDS. The petitioner, accordingly, had become entitled to the benefit under a scheme.
Bombay High Court Disposes PIL Against Use Of Laser Beams And Loud Sound Systems During Festivals
Case title: Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat Thou Their Sanghatak vs. State Of Maharashtra Through Their Chief Secretary, And Ors
The Bombay High Court has disposed a PIL against the usage of laser beams and loud sound systems during religious processions and other ceremonies. In its order, the Court noted that the petitioner can submit a representation to the appropriate authority/State government to take measures for regulating the use of light laser beams. . It also noted that the petitioner can inform the police about any relevant provisions in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and file a complaint.
Bombay High Court Imposes Fine On JAO & Chief Commissioner For Disregarding Binding Judgement
Case Title: Samp Furniture Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 434
The Bombay High Court has imposed a fine of Rs. 25000/- on the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for disregarding the binding judgment passed in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & 4 Ors., in which it was held that under the faceless assessment scheme introduced by Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices.
The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that the case reflects a very poor state of affairs on the part of the JAOs, which is also not being corrected by the higher officials, namely, the Commissioner and Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. Even the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has acted with total non-application of mind.
Case title: Crimeophobia – A Criminology Firm Through its founder – Criminologist Snehil Dhall vs. Ministry of Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 435
The Bombay High has dismissed with costs a 'frivolous' PIL which sought constitution of an 'Anti-Organized Crime Unit' at the Aarey Milk Colony, constitution of a 'Bombay Cave Temple Commission' and a 'Transnational Sanatan Commission' along with other diverse prayers.
“Having devoted considerable time in hearing such pleas, we find it extremely difficult to comprehend and understand the very purpose of instituting these proceedings as a PIL petition” the Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar remarked.