Citation 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 320 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 498

Nominal Index

ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 320

Ritu Dinesh Maloo v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 321

Kartik Vaman Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 322

Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil & Ors. v. Chief Minister, State Of Maharashtra & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 323

The Indian Express (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Ganesh Gopinath Rane 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 324

Pritam Chandulal Oswal v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 325

Himalay Manohar Patil v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 326

Naresh Goyal v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 327

XYZ v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 328

Sunil s/o Late Chhatrapal Kedar v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 329

Shekhar Chandrashekhar v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 330

Vidya Sunil Ahire and Ors. v. Commissioner of Police, Thane 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 331

Dr. Sharadchandra s/o Ganpatrao Wankhede v. Raosaheb S/o. Dadarao Danve and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 332

Aradhya Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 333

Umesh Radhai Saroj v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 334

Patanjali Foods Ltd. Versus UOI, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 335

Konkan LNG Limited Versus The Commissioner of State Tax. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 336

X. Y. Z. vs. Dean of Vitthal Sayanna Civil Hospital & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 337

Symbiosis Open Education Society and Symbiosis Skills and Professional University & Anr. vs. University Grants Commission & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 338

CEAT Limited vs. Viren Mishra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 339

Saraswati Santosh Rathod v. Commissioner of Police Pune City and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 340

Zakaulla Khazi vs State of Goa, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 341

Ivory Properties & Hotels Private Limited vs. Vasantben Ramniklal Bhuta & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 342

ACIT Versus Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 343

Vrindavan CHSL & Ors., State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 344

Cong Ling v. FRRO, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 345

Raj Shipping Agencies Ltd vs. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai , 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 346

Smt. Sunita Purushottam Virgincar Versus ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 347

Vivek Krishnamurari Shrivastav v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 348

A vs P, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 349

Sadhu Bhaskar Pawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 350

M/s. Dem Homes LLP vs. Taruvel C.H.S.L. & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 351

Akshay Khandve VS State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 352

Mohammed Javed Shaikh vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 353

Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 354

Momin Zulfikar Kasam vs. Ajay Balkrishna Durve, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 355

Rajendra S. Bajaj Versus The Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 356

M/s. TML Business Services Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 357

Royal Bitumen Private Limited, Mumbai Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 358

Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 359

Madhura Mukul Gandhe & Ors. vs. The Hon'ble Cabinet Minister for Co-Operation Maharashtra State, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 360

M/s. Tolani Ltd. Versus DCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 361

Umang Mahendra Shah Versus Union of India & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 362

Venus Jewel Versus ACIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 363

Pawan Jain vs Sejal Jain, 024 LiveLaw (Bom) 364

Kartik Mohan Prasad vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 365

Aswini Jitendra Kable v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 366

Vinod Ganpatrao Nichat vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 367

M/S Bharat Kolkata Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd vs. Goa Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council 2024 LiveLaw (Bom), 368

Parvez Vaid vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 369

Shankar Vithoba Desai And Ors Vs Gauri Associates And Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 370

Ambrish H. Soni vs Mr Chetan Narendra Dhakan, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 371

Manish Rameshchandra Shah vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 372

Mahesh Naik vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 373

Kumar Goraknath Shinde vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 374

Nirav Raval vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 375

Darshan Kumar Vilayatiram Khanna vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 376

Govinda Goga Donde & anr. vs. Mayur Ramesh Bora & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 377

Surekha Luxman Sonovane vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 378

PCIT Versus G.K. Developers, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 379

Ajay Melwani vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 380

KC Bokadia vs CBFC, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 381

The State of Maharashtra & ors. vs. Mr. Baban Yeshwant Ghuge, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 382

Pramod Shendre vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 383

M/s. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs. Mumbai Mahanagar Palika & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 384

Sandip Talande vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 385

Shyamsunder Agarwal vs Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 386

EBIX Cash Pvt. Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 387

Om Shakti Mahila Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit vs Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 388

Hemprabha co-operative Housing society Ltd. vs. Kishore C. Waghela & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 389

Hardik Shah vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 390

Lalchand Bhojwani vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 391

Hemant Surgical Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 392

Benaifer Vispi Patel Versus ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 393

Khaled Gomaeai Mohammad Hasan vs. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 394

Aniket Dhatrak vs Shalaka Dhatrak, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 395

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

Case Title: RNA Royal Park Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. vs The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 397

Pramod Purabiya vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 398

Yusuf Yunus Kantharia vs. Bombay Housing And Area Development Authority and ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 399

Indo Allied Protein Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Food , Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Dept, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 400

Hemant Surgical Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 401

Naveed Abdul Saeed Mulla vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 402

Federal Brands Ltd. vs. Cosmos Premises Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 403

Chowgule and Company Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 404

Namdeo Chormule vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 405

Nitin Upadhyay vs State, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 406

Sneha Akshay Garg & Anr. v. Nil, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 407

B. G. Exploration and Production Versus The State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 408

Sujith Kumar Rangaswami (Criminal Appeal 1268 of 2023),2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 409

Shri Madhukar Mahadev Patil vs. Sangli Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 410

Samad Habib Mithani vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 1241 of 2014), 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 411

Divvela Ramaiah and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 412

Prahlad Feku Gupta vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 413

Bhavesh Bhinde vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 414

Eka Academy Private Limited Versus Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 415

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd vs. Jindal Drugs Limited And Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 416

Yakub Baig Trust Panvel Erstwhile Mominpada Masjid Yakub Baig Trust vs. Ganu Mahadu Gaikar & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 417

Govind Kondiba Tanpure & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 418

Gandharva Dhaneshwar Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 419

Shri. Narayan Damodar Thakur & anr. vs. Shri. Madanlal Mohanlal Malpani, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 420

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Versus SVD Resins & Plastics Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 421

Dattatray Shrikrushna Shejole vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 422

Kairos Properties Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 423

Shailaja Nitin Mishra vs Nitin Kumar Mishra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 424

Cheftalk Food and Hospitality Services vs. ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 425

Marine Electricals India vs. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 426

Shridhar Kashinath Bhagat vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 427

Sanjay Gowardhan Wakde vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 428

Sheela Chowgule vs Vijay V. Chowgule and ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 429

Hemant Mahipatray Shah and another vs Anand Upadhyay and another, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 429

Arihant Developers Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 432

Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat Thou Their Sanghatak vs. State Of Maharashtra Through Their Chief Secretary, And Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 433

Samp Furniture Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 434

Crimeophobia – A Criminology Firm Through its founder – Criminologist Snehil Dhall vs. Ministry of Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development and Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 435

Mituram Udayram Dhurve vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal 201 of 2021), 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 436

Phoenix Industries Limited Versus UOI, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 437

Mrs vs State of Goa, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 438

Joseph Paul De Souza vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 439

Vaishali Gawande vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 440

Nanda Bai Sarjerav Misal versus State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 441

Shital Dinkar Bhagat vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 442

MARS Enterprise vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 443

Madhukar Baburao Shete vs. Yogesh Trimbak Shete & Anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 444

T.J. Thomas & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 445

Abhijit Padale vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 446

Anil Govind Ganu & anr. vs. Innovative Technomics Pvt. Ltd. & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 447

ADP vs State of Maharashtra,n2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 448

Dr. Pradeep Mehta & anr. vs. UPI & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 449

Tilak Ventures Ltd vs. The Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 450

Rajiv Saxena vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 451

Aashish Niranjan Shah vs. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 452

Sheth Motishaw Lalbaug Jain Charities vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 453

Milind Kashinath Kamble vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 454

Manish Ramniklal Sawla vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 455

MS vs HS, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 456

Chrisella Valanka Kushi Raj Naidu vs Ministry of External Affairs, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 457

Pidilite Industries vs Premier Stationery Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Contempt Petition 28560 of 2024), 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 458

Shahrukh Ziya Mohammad vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 459

Mallinath Vithal Vathakar vs The Registrar, University of Mumbai, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 460

Mohan Chavan vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 461

Abhin Anilkumar Shah versus ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 462

Nitin Vasantrao Bode vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 463

Tejasvee Abhishek Ghosalkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 464

Vijay Sapkale vs Varsha Pradhan, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 465

Sete Mares Global Forex Private Limited v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 466

Mahesh Motiram Kumbhar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 467

Nandkishor Sahu vs Sanjeevani Patil, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 468

Miss XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 469

Dilkhush Shrigiriwar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 470

Narsingrao Udgirkar vs Shivaji Kalge, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 471

Rahul Lahase vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 472

L vs State of Goa, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 473

Uttam Value Steels Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 474

Mitesh Punmiya vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 475

Ramesh Gopnur vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 476

Syed Naeemuddin & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 477

The State of Goa thr. Women Police Station, Panaji vs. M, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 478

Dr Sushant Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 479

Santosh Rodrigues vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 480

Kunal Kamra vs Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 481

Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Versus The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 482

Dr Prashant Ahire vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 483

Munib Iqbal Memon vs. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 484

Santosh Madhukar Bhondve & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 485

Volvo Group India Pvt Ltd. versus Union of India and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 486

Uttam Value Steels Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 487

Namdeo Bansode vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 488

Mahesh Raut vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 489

HDFC Bank Limited & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 490

Shahid Akeel Shaikh vs. Union of India & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 491

Dnyaneshwar Wakale vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 492

Vijay Jawanjal vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 493

Industrial Development Bank of India versus DCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 494

Arshad Khalifa vs Gulzar Khalifa, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 495

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Galaxy Surfactants, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 496

Y-Not Films LLP and Anr. vs. Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 497

Sudhir Kumar Sengupta vs. Kusum Pandurang Keni, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 498

Judgments/Final orders:

"Members Of LGBTQ+ Community Vulnerable Within Jail": Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Trafficking Child

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.”

Bombay High Court Quashes Case Against Raj Thackeray For Abetting Violence And Public Property Damage In 2008

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.

Mere Filing Of FIR, Ongoing Probe Against Applicant Without Court's Cognizance Not Valid Grounds To Refuse Passport Renewal: Bombay High Court

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.

Bombay HC Sets Aside Stay On 'Exceptional' Transfer Of Indian Express Employee, Says Prior Dispute With Employer No Reason To Presume Malafides

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.”

Consensual Relationship Not License To Exploit Partner Sexually, Physically Or Financially: Bombay High Court

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.

Bombay High Court Grants Relief To Contractor Whose License Was Cancelled After He Barged Into Zilla Parishad Office Without Authorization

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.”

Bombay High Court Extends Jet Airways Founder Naresh Goyal's Temporary Bail In Rs 538 Crores Money Laundering Case By Four Weeks

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.

Bombay High Court Permits Woman Diagnosed With Cancer To Terminate 25-Weeks Pregnancy, Says She Has 'Reproductive Freedom'

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.

“Incarcerated For More Than 7 Yrs, Longer Than Maximum Sentence”: Bombay HC Grants Bail To Conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar In 2015 Ponzi Scheme Case

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.

Family Of Employee Having More Than Two Children Ineligible For Compassionate Appointment: Bombay High Court Dismisses Claim Of Deceased Cop's Son

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.

Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Election Of BJP Leaders Raosaheb Danve, Pritam Munde In 2019 Lok Sabha Polls

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.

Bombay High Court Allows Student Who Missed HSC Improvement Exam Due To Depression, Internet Gaming Disorder Treatment To Re-Take Exam

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.

[POCSO] Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief To Man Booked For Allegedly Making Child Record Sexual Activity Between Him And The Child's Mother

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.

Breakwater-Wall For Ship-Safety Not 'Plant And Machinery', GAIL Subsidiary Not Eligible For ITC: Bombay High Court

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.

Bombay High Court Expresses Anguish Over Social Stigma Suffered By Women Due To Unwanted Pregnancies Without Any Repercussions For Men

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.

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of UGC Regulations On Distance Learning And Online Programmes

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.

However, the court observed that until an appropriate set of NAAC parameters is established for a skill university, the outcome of a skill university's review by NAAC would not be appropriate. However, the Court also remarked that since it did not find the requirements of the Regulations to be unconstitutional, it has to issue directions to address such anomaly so that the constitutional validity of the Regulations was not disturbed while ensuring that its effect was not arbitrary and unreasonable to the petitioner.

Section 5 Of Limitation Act Can Be Applied To Condone Delays Under Commercial Courts Act Even In Absence Of Express Provisions: Bombay HC

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.

Society In Which Earning Members Are Addicted Will Naturally Suffer Economically And Socially: Bombay High Court

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.

While Imposing Conditions For Bail, Trial Court Cannot Direct Accused To Apply For Passport, Obtain It & Then Surrender It: Bombay HC

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.​

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due To Arbitrator Relying On Non-Executed Agreement, Adopting Non-Judicial Approach

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.”

Assessee Can't Be Expected To Deduct TDS From Payments Which Became Taxable Owing To Retrospective Amendment: Bombay High Court

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.

The Court observed that an expert body of persons fix the average rate of lands and buildings and that the Ready Reckoner is prepared with great deal of detailing, with rated even being fixed street wise. It stated that “there is nothing wrong in the Government looking to the Ready Reckoner rate as a reasonable benchmark of value for the purposes of calculating the revised lease rent.” The Court therefore held that the government could fix lease rent by taking into account the value of the land as per the Ready Reckoner. Further, it observed that each member's liability towards the revised lease rent is a maximum of Rs.6,000 per month, and in some cases, even less than Rs.2,000 per month. In view of this, the Court stated that the increase in lease rent was not exorbitant. However, the it struck down the provision for revision of lease rent every 5 years as the original deed guaranteed a fixed lease rent for the entire term and therefore could not changed through a Government Resolution.

No Foreigner In India Can Be Deprived Of Their Rights: Bombay HC Orders Rs 10 Lakh Compensation To Chinese Woman Harassed By Customs Dept

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 expressed anguish over the manner in which the Customs Department "harassed" the woman - Cong Ling, who was wrongly arrested in 2019 and since then has been in India leaving her children behind in China, and therefore ordered the Union Government to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to her.

Interpretation Of 'Scale Of Rates' By Tariff Authority For Major Ports Is A Binding Decision: Bombay High Court

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.”

Reassessment Notice Not Complying Section 148 Pre-Conditions Is Beyond Jurisdictional: Bombay High Court

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.

If Parole Can Be Given To Share Grief, Why Not To Share Happy Moments? Bombay HC Releases Convict To Meet Son Going Abroad To Study

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.

High Court Cannot Deprive Wife Of Her Right To Choose Appropriate Forum To Seek Maintenance: Bombay High Court

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.

'Unconvincing': Bombay HC Pulls Up Authorities For Delay In Deciding Representation Against Preventive Detention Due To Holidays, Official Work

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 while dealing with the plea noted that the detenu had forwarded his representation against the preventive detention, on January 25, 2024, and the authorities decided the same after more than a month, i.e. February 26, 2024. The authorities explained the delay by citing reasons such as the detailed report (on detention) could not be prepared by the sponsoring authority as some of the policemen were on bandobast duty and some on election duty. They further cited public holidays, weekly holidays etc for the said delay in deciding the representation of the detenu.

Terming this explanation 'unsatisfactory', the judges in their order 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."

Court Continues To Be Flooded With Cases Where Minority Members Of Housing Societies Hinder Redevelopment Plans On 'Frivolous' Grounds: Bombay HC

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”

Bombay High Court Releases 18-Yr-Old Who Mowed Down Woman From His Bike, Cites His 'Young Age' And 'Bright Future'

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."

India's “Richest” Corporation Cannot Act Arbitrarily: Bombay HC Slams BMC For Failure To Provide Rent/Alternative Accommodation To Displaced

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.

Bombay High Court Criticises RSS Worker For "Thwarting" Rahul Gandhi's Right To Speedy Trial In Defamation Case

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 while allowed a writ petition filed by the Congress leader challenging the order of the Magistrate Court, which permitted Kunte to rely on the transcript of Gandhi's speech. The parliamentarian from Rae Bareli had contended that he cannot be compelled to admit or rely on any documents in the case. The judge in his order pulled up Kunte for resorting to delay tactics. "It can be seen that the respondent No.2 (Kunte) is keeping no stone un-turned to thwart the legitimate right of the petitioner (Gandhi) to get the complaint decided on merits as expeditiously as possible in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides speedy trial. It is difficult to abstruse the conduct of the respondent No.2. 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 in his order.

O.21 R. 16 CPC | Transferee Of Property Can Apply For Execution Of Decree Without Separate Assignment Order: Bombay High Court

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.

Bombay High Court Directs Sales Tax Dept. To Refund Rs. 10.70 Crores Excess Paid Under Settlement Scheme

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.

JAO Cease To Have Jurisdiction To Issue Reassessment Notice Outside Faceless Assessment: Bombay High Court

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.

[UAPA] Investigating Agency Cannot Seek Extension Of Time For Filing Chargesheet Citing Lack Of Sanction: Bombay High Court

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.

Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act Promotes Open Membership, Rejection Of Applicant Unwarranted If All Conditions Are Met: Bombay High Court

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.

Husband Convicted For Causing Dowry Death Cannot Inherit Deceased Wife's Property Under Hindu Succession Act: Bombay High Court

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.

Maharashtra's Amendment Exempting Private Schools From 25% RTE Quota If Govt-Run School Exists Nearby 'Unconstitutional': High 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).

Victim's Mother Would Not Risk Minor Daughter's Future By Concocting Story Of Molestation Due To Enmity With Accused: Bombay High Court

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. "If they wanted to falsely implicate the accused, then the mother of the victim would have created an imaginary story of molesting her own modesty. In our conservative society, even on account of family enmity, the future and career of the girl is not jeopardized. In my view, this is a strong circumstance in favour of the prosecution," the bench underscored.

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.

Dawood Ibrahim Is A Terrorist In Individual Capacity, Gang Association With Him Not Punishable Under UAPA: Bombay High Court

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.

Individual Members Of Society Can't Be Considered Signatories To The Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court

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.

Stock Broker Forwarding Messages About Dormant Shares Can't Be Booked For Duping Shareholders: Bombay High Court

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.

Police Officers Must Follow SC Mandate On Furnishing Grounds Of Arrest To Accused In Writing: Bombay High Court

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.

Bombay HC Clamps Down On Horse-Trading Tactics In Municipal Elections, Post-Poll Alliances By Independent Candidates To Be Considered Pre-Poll Alliances

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.

Merely Being Customers In A Bar Where Women Are Dancing Does Not Attract Offense Of Obscenity: Bombay High Court

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.

Allegations Of Ill-Treatment By Man Against His Family Members Cannot Come U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High Court

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.

"A plain but careful reading of the FIR and the charge sheet indicates that the allegations against the Petitioners are quite general and vague. Undoubtedly, she has given a list of incidents of cruelty in the FIR, however, the instances are also of a nature that do not fulfill the ingredients of Section 498(A) of the IPC. Moreover, the allegations are made only against the husband's relatives. In fact, some of the ill-treatment as alleged is aimed against her husband and not even the complainant herself. Allegations of ill-treatment by a man against his own family members do not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 498(A) of the IPC," the bench held in the July 18 judgment.

[Section 9-A CPC] Trial Court Cannot Frame Issue Which Only Disposes Of The Suit In-Part: Bombay High Court

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.

Bombay High Court Orders Mandatory Presence Of Medical Facilities In All Schools & Colleges Across Maharashtra

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.

'Built Up Area' Definition Can't Have Retrospective Application, Bombay High Court Dismisses Dept. Appeal

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.

Company, Its Officials Must Update Themselves With Ever-Changing Laws, Ignorance Not An Excuse For Breaking It: Bombay High Court

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.

Decks Cleared For Release Of Film 'Teesri Begum' After Makers Agree Before Bombay High Court To Remove "Jai Shri Ram" Slogan From Scene

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."

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules | Gratuity Of Employee Can Be Withheld Until Conclusion Of Criminal Appeal: Bombay High Court

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.

Unfortunate That Everyone Wants To Show That Their Religion And God Are Supreme: Bombay High Court On "Vande Mataram" Row

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.

If Burden Of Excess Duty Passed On To Customers, Granting Refund Would Result In 'Unjust Enrichment': Bombay High Court

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'.

Commission Of Sexual Act By Any Of The Accused Is Sufficient To Rope In Remaining Accused In Offence Of Gang Rape: Bombay High Court

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.

Bombay High Court Accepts Apology Of Mumbai Police Crime Branch Officers Accused Of Barging Into Residence After Midnight

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.

Doctrine Of Separability; Arbitration Agreement Survives Termination Of Main Contract: Bombay High Court

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.

Bombay High Court Calls For Regular Checks On Mid-Day Meal Providers To Ensure Children From Marginalised Sections Don't 'Suffer In Silence'

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.

Co-operative Court Has Jurisdiction Over Property Recovery Disputes U/S 91 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act: Bombay High Court

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.

Asking Wife To Clean House And Show To In-Laws On Video Call Is "Sadist Ill-Treatment": Bombay HC While Refusing To Quash Cruelty FIR

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.

"Consensual Relationship With Married Man, Woman Was Adult Enough": Bombay HC Quashes Case Against Man Accused Of Raping Victim For 31 Yrs

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.

Assessment Order Need Not Contain Reference Disclosing Satisfaction On Each And Every Query: Bombay High Court

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. 

"Go To Pakistan Or Some Gulf Country, Do Not Take Undue Advantage Of India's Liberal Attitude": Bombay High Court Tells Refugee Who Overstayed

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.

Right To Seek Divorce Is 'Personal Right' Of Individual, Family Cannot Pursue Proceedings After Son's Death: Bombay High Court

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.

[Admiralty Act] Intervention Application Permissible If Party Has An Interest In Ship Or Sale Proceeds: Bombay High Court

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

Courts Cannot Assess If A Dog Is Aggressive: Bombay HC Orders Animal Welfare Committee To Resolve Dog Feeding Dispute In Housing Society

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.

Rape On Pretext Of Marriage | Arranging Rented House Does Not Show Intent To Marry Victim But To Keep Her 'Easily Available': Bombay HC

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.

Non-Payment Of Compensation For 36 Yrs After Land Acquisition Violates Constitutional And Human Rights: Bombay High Court

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.

HC Dismisses Pleas Challenging Maharashtra Govt's Tender For "Anandacha Shidha" Scheme To Distribute Subsidised Food Kits On Ganesh Chaturthi

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.

Not Mandatory For Assessment Order To Contain Reference Disclosing Its Satisfaction Of Each And Every Query: Bombay High Court

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.

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Maharashtra Govt's 'Ladki Bahin' And 'Yuva Karya' Schemes

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).

Pulling Woman's Hair, Pushing Her During Quarrel Doesn't Outrage Her Modesty: Bombay HC Grants Relief To 5 Followers Of Bageshwar Baba

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.

Keeping Mutual Divorce Proceedings Pending Causes Mental Agony: Bombay High Court Waives 6 Months Cooling Period, Dissolves Marriage

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.

Bombay High Court Quashes Show Cause Notice Issued Without Mentioning Documents Required To Be Furnished By Assessee

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.

Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Five Members Of Sanatan Sanstha, Hindu Janjagruti Samiti Booked For Conspiring To Bomb 2018 Sunburn Fest

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.

[Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act] No Provision For Cooperative Court To Return Plaint Before Appropriate Court When It Lacks Jurisdiction: HC

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'.

S. 498A IPC | In-Laws Can't Be Booked Merely On Allegations That They Supported Husband Who Subjected Wife To Cruelty: Bombay HC

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.

Institute Of Actuaries Of India Regulations | Bombay HC Upholds Validity Of Regulation Disallowing Associate Members From Getting Certificate Of Practice

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.

Bombay High Court Directs Govt. To Constitute A Committee To Decide SVLDRS Declaration Filed On 30th December 2019

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.

[Electricity Act] Relabelling Of Products Not 'Manufacturing', Such Activity Not Eligible For Industrial Tariff Categorization: Bombay HC

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.

Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act | Trust Land Must Be Included In Schedule-I To Claim Exemption, Order U/S 88B Insufficient: High Court

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.

[LARR Act, 2013] Collector's Award Must Be Challenged In Application U/S 64 To Be Referred To Authority: Bombay High Court

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.

Subletting Must Be Presumed In Commercial Tenancy Where Tenant Allows Outsider To Use The Premises For Profiteering: Bombay High Court

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.

Article 21 Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime, Accused Cannot Be Kept Behind Bars Indefinitely Without Progress In Trial: Bombay HC

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.

Reassessment Notices & Order Passed Contrary To Notified Mandatory Faceless Procedure U/s 151A Are Liable To Be Quashed: Bombay HC

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)”.

Merely Donating Eggs Or Sperm Does Not Make Donor A Biological Parent Of Child Born Through IVF: Bombay High Court

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.

Best Judgment Assessment Passed U/s 144 Without Giving Seven Day's Time To Taxpayer To Respond To SCN: Bombay HC Quashes Assessment

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.

Atal Setu Is India's Premier Infrastructure Project, Cannot Be Risked Due To Stone Crushing & Blasting: Bombay High Court

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.

Rape A Condemnable Offence But Conviction Cannot Be On Ground Of Sympathy With Victim: Bombay High Court

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.

TDS Deducted By Company Already Deposited With Interest: Bombay High Court Quashes Notice Against Directors

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.

Bombay HC Imposes 10K Cost On PIL For Setting-Up 'Anti-Organized Crime Unit' At Aarey Milk Colony, Constituting 'Cave Temple Commission'

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.

Repeatedly Following A Minor Girl, Trying To Express Love Despite Her Disinclination Is Sexual Harassment Under POCSO Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Mituram Udayram Dhurve vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal 201 of 2021)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 436

In a significant ruling, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held that if a boy repeatedly follows a minor girl to talk to her, to express his love for her and then boast that one day she will accept his love, shows that his intention was not good and the same would amount to sexual harassment under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Non-Submission Of “Bill Of Export” Can't Be Treated As Non-Discharge Of Export Obligation, If Supply To SEZ Unit Is Proved: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Phoenix Industries Limited Versus UOI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 437

The Bombay High Court has held that if the party is able to show proof of supply to the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Unit, then non-submission of the “Bill of Export” cannot be treated as non-discharge of proof of export obligation (EO).

The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that failure to produce a copy of the assessed bill of export in respect of the supplies made to SEZ would not necessarily result in holding that there was a failure to discharge the export obligation where one is able to establish supplies made to SEZ by the production of copies of ARE-1.

"Can't Deprive Women From Participating In Workforce": Bombay HC Quashes Lady Officer's Transfer To Allow Her To Care For Son With Special Needs

Case Title: Mrs vs State of Goa

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 438

The Bombay High Court at Goa recently said it cannot deprive women of their 'due participation' as members of the workforce and therefore, ordered the State administration not to transfer a woman police officer from Ponda city to any other place as her minor son, an autistic child, needed her 'special care and assistance.'

[S.509 IPC] Objectionable Words Written In E-Mail Or On Social Media Can Be Penalised For Insulting Woman's Modesty: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Joseph Paul De Souza vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 439

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 21), held that even a 'written' insulting word, either on email or social media, that could lower the dignity of a woman, is sufficient to book someone under section 509 (insulting the modesty of woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale refused to accept the contention that as per section 509 (which penalises any words uttered to insult a woman), the word 'uttered' would only mean 'spoken words' and not words 'written' on an email or social media posts etc.

Husband's Girlfriend Is Not His Relative, Cannot Be Booked For Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vaishali Gawande vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 440

In a significant order, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held that the girlfriend of a husband cannot be booked under charges of domestic violence or cruelty punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Emergency Services Will Be Impacted, Life Of Entire Maharashtra May Come To A Halt: Bombay High Court on MVA's Maharashtra Bandh

Case Title: Nanda Bai Sarjerav Misal versus State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 441

The Bombay High Court on Friday (August 23) while restraining the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) coalition from proceeding with its call for a 'Maharashtra Bandh' to protest the sexual assault of two kindergarten girls in Badlapur, said that such a 'Bandh' will halt the 'entire life of Mumbai.'

Person Attempting To Commit Suicide Cannot Be Penalised In View Of Provisions Of Mental Healthcare Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shital Dinkar Bhagat vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 442

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently granted relief to a woman constable, who was booked for committing suicide after noting that she took the extreme step under stress and thus her act is exempted from action owing to provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

Owner/Occupier Of Property Will Have To Pay Water Tax, Water Benefit Tax Even If They Do Not Consume Water From BMC: Bombay High Court

Case Title: MARS Enterprise vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 443

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court last week held that an owner of a property will have to pay the water tax and the water benefit tax irrespective of whether the owner or occupier of the property uses the water facility or not.

Mandatory Procedures Cannot Be Bypassed To Show Large Number Of Case Disposals In Lok Adalat: Bombay High Court

Case title: Madhukar Baburao Shete vs. Yogesh Trimbak Shete & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 444

The Bombay High Court has observed that the Authority or Committee organising Lok Adalat cannot directly transfer pending cases to the Lok Adalat without a reference order from the concerned court, as stipulated under Section 20(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Court emphasised that the mandatory procedures outlined in the Act cannot be bypassed only to show high figures of disposal of cases, as it would defeat the very purpose of Lok Adalat.

MHADA & BMC Failed To Take Action Against Developer, Nexus Apparent: Bombay HC In Plea Against Non Issuance Of Occupation Certificate

Case Title: T.J. Thomas & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 445

While hearing a plea against non issuance of Occupation Certificate (OC) by the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Board (MHADA) and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (BMC) for certain property, the Bombay High Court said that the authorities' conduct in failing to take necessary actions against the developer pointed to a nexus between them.

A division bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Kamal Khata said, “The nexus between MHADA, BMC, and the Developer is apparent. There is no explanation for why, to date, the MHADA has not obtained the surrender of valuable property or compensation from the developer. The MHADA is not some private entity that can waive such conditions at its whims or fancies or foist such conditions indirectly on the tenants or occupants by pressuring them to pressure the developer. The developer has not even bothered to appear because it has nothing to lose and has already gained everything, thanks to the dereliction and unreasonable approach of the MHADA and BMC in this matter.”

No Person Can Be Arrested Merely Based On Allegations Of Committing A Crime: Bombay High Court On 'Illegal Arrest' of Journalist

Case Title: Abhijit Padale vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 446

No person can be arrested merely because s/he is facing allegations of having committed some offence, the Bombay High Court said recently while holding the arrest of a Thane-based journalist by the Mumbai Police, illegal. It also ordered the Mumbai Police to pay Rs 25,000 compensation to the petitioner. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan noted that the journalist - Abhijit Padale, was arrested under charges of extortion and criminal intimidation, both of which provide for maximum punishment upto four years and three years, respectively.

[Payment Of Gratuity Act] Mere Reflection In Balance Sheet Doesn't Give Rise To Gratuity Claim In Absence Of Underlying Agreement: Bombay HC

Case title: Anil Govind Ganu & anr. vs. Innovative Technomics Pvt. Ltd. & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 447

While considering the claim for payment of gratuity by the Directors of a company, the Bombay High Court has observed that an entry in the liability column of the balance sheet of the company cannot be considered an 'agreement' between the company and directors under Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated “…it cannot be stated that mere reflection of an entry in the liability column of balance sheet would amount to creation of a right which never existed. . Such right will have to be independently established either through a transaction or a document in the form of a contract.”

Girl Who Eloped With Paramour Days Before Her Marriage Fixed By Parents Cannot Be Booked For Cheating By Groom: Bombay High Court

Case Title: ADP vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 448

The Bombay High Court has held that if a girl elopes with her paramour before marrying the groom with whom her parents fixed her marriage, she cannot be booked for hearing by the groom and his parents. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale gave the ruling while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a girl, her parents and brother, all residents of Pune, for allegedly cheating a man's family, with whom the girl's marriage was fixed after her engagement.

Casually Freezing DEMAT Accounts Is Draconian, Violates Article 300A: Bombay High Court Imposes ₹80 Lakh Costs On BSE, NSE, SEBI

Case title: Dr. Pradeep Mehta & anr. vs. UPI & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 449

The Bombay High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs and Rs. 50 lakhs to two individuals whose Demat accounts were frozen at the behest of the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and National Stock Exchange (NSE), following the directives of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).

Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that the arbitrary freezing of demat accounts by the authorities violated the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.

Reopening Proceedings In Defiance Of Mandatory Procedure U/s 151A To Be Quashed: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Tilak Ventures Ltd vs. The Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 450

The Bombay High Court clarified that the Assessing Officer is required to adhere to the provisions of Section 151A read with CBDT Notification dated Mar 29, 2022 for resorting to a procedure u/s 148A and the consequent notice u/s 148.

Department Can Centralize Assessment At One Place If There Are Sufficient Reasons: Bombay High Court Upholds Transfer Order U/s 127

Case Title: Rajiv Saxena vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 451

Finding that the Assessee had transactions with certain Indian citizens, who were subject to search operation and whose assessments were centralized with the Central Circle at New Delhi, the Bombay High Court find sufficient reasons for proposing of Assessee's case to be centralised at New Delhi.

The High Court also found that the assessment of such persons would certainly have a bearing on the assessment of the Assessee, as there are inter se transactions between such parties. Thus, the High Court upheld the order u/s 127 transferring Assessee's case from the AO in Mumbai to AO in Delhi.

Failure TO Disclose All Material Facts Fully & Truly During Original Assessment Is Vital For Invoking Jurisdiction U/s 147: Bombay HC

Case Title: Aashish Niranjan Shah vs. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 452

The Bombay High Court recently clarified that it is not open to the Revenue to initiate reassessment on the premise that it can simply form a belief supported by its own reasons, thereby ignoring the explicit formulation of the jurisdiction within which reassessment may be initiated.

The High Court therefore quashes the reassessment notice issued under old regime of Section 148 along with the order disposing off Assessee's objection against re-opening of the assessment.

Paryushan Parva: Bombay High Court Orders Civic Bodies To Decide Whether Animal Slaughter, Sale Of Meat Can Be Temporarily Banned

Case Title: Sheth Motishaw Lalbaug Jain Charities vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 453

The Bombay High Court on Thursday ordered all the municipal corporations in Maharashtra to urgently decide the representations made by various Charitable Trusts of the Jain community seeking a temporary ban on the slaughtering of animals and sale of meat in view of the community's "Paryushan Parva."

"Undermined Integrity Of Electoral Process": Bombay HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Man Who Attempted To Replace Actual Candidate In Lok Sabha Polls

Case Title: Milind Kashinath Kamble vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 454

Observing that his act "undermined the integrity of electoral process and democracy" the Bombay High Court last week rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by a man, who allegedly cheated the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) party and filled in his own nomination form instead of the party's official candidate. Single-judge Justice Rajesh Laddha dismissed the bail application filed by one Milind Kamble, who was entrusted with the task to fill in the AB forms for the Lok Sabha Elections, bythe VBA party.

No Law Prohibits Grant Of Temporary Permission To Ganesh Mandals For Erecting Pandals: Bombay High Court

Case title: Manish Ramniklal Sawla vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 455

The Bombay High Court has dismissed an application that challenged the decision of State authorities to grant temporary permission for erecting Ganesh pandals in an open area of land in Andheri, Mumbai.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar noted that the land has been allocated temporarily for the Ganesh Chaturthi festival and that the pandals will be removed after the festival is over.

Mere Desire Of Child To Be With One Parent Is Not A Ground To Decide Custody Matters: Bombay High Court

Case Title: MS vs HS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 456

In a significant order, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held that custody matters pertaining to a child cannot be decided merely on the basis of the 'desire' of the child of a tender age since there are possibilities of 'tutoring' the child. Single-judge Justice Kishore Sant upheld the May 9, 2024 judgment of a Family Court in Aurangabad, which granted custody of two minor boys of 2 and 5 years of age, to their mother. The bench refused to accept the contention of the father, who enjoyed the children's custody until May 2024, that the children 'desired' to stay with him and not with the mother.

Child Cannot Be Left 'Stateless'; Even If Parents Give Up Indian Citizenship, Child Will Continue To Be Citizen: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Chrisella Valanka Kushi Raj Naidu vs Ministry of External Affairs

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 457

The Bombay High Court bench at Goa on Wednesday (August 28) held that a child cannot be denied Indian citizenship just because s/he lives with a single parent, who too is a foreign national.

A division bench of Justices Makarand Karnik and Valmiki SA Menezes said a parent giving up Indian citizenship would not affect the citizenship status of the child, who got Indian citizenship by virtue of birth.

Bombay High Court Imposes Rs 50 Lakh Costs On Company For Breaching Injunction Orders, Using Fevicol Trademark

Case List: Pidilite Industries vs Premier Stationery Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Contempt Petition 28560 of 2024)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 458

In yet another case of contempt in a commercial suit, the Bombay High Court on August 13 imposed a hefty cost of Rs 50 lakh on a company which used 'deceptively' similar trademark of Fevicol and its range of products despite an injunction restraining the company from using anything similar to said trademark. Single-judge Justice Riyaz Chagla noted that the petitioner in breach of the injunction order continued to sell the disputed products. It refused to accept the contention of the original defendant Kusum Puri Goswami, the owners of defendant company that it had sold the company to one Rajinder Puri Goswami and thus, they cannot be held responsible for any disobedience of the High Court's July 13, 2017 injunction order.

"Defective Investigation Shakes Public Confidence": Bombay High Court Transfers Probe In Nagpur Ram Jhula Hit And Run Case

Case Details: Shahrukh Ziya Mohammad vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 459

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday transferred the investigations of the infamous Nagpur Ram Jhula hit-and-run case, wherein a woman under the influence of alcohol drove her Mercedes Benz and mowed down two youngsters, from the local police station to the State Crime Investigation Department (CID) after noting several lapses in the initial investigation.

A division bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and Vrushali Joshi while transferring the case observed that defective investigation tends to shake the confidence of the members of the society and also the victims.

Unfortunate That Rowdy & Disorderly Behaviour By Educational Institute Employees Has Become An Accepted Norm: Bombay High Court

Case Details: Mallinath Vithal Vathakar vs The Registrar, University of Mumbai

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 460

In a significant order, the Bombay High Court while upholding the punishment of a college library attendant for 'misconduct' within the campus, observed that nowadays 'disorderly, rowdy behaviour' of employees in schools and colleges has become an accepted norm, which has only brought disrepute to the institutions.

Single-judge Justice RM Joshi while upholding the September 23, 2008 judgment of the Mumbai University and College Tribunal (MUCT), said the punishment upheld by the tribunal of dismissing the petitioner from service, was 'proportionate' to his 'proved' misconduct.

Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: September 2024

Nominal Index (2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 461 to 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 498):

Mohan Chavan vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 461

Abhin Anilkumar Shah versus ITO, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 462

Nitin Vasantrao Bode vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 463

Tejasvee Abhishek Ghosalkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 464

Vijay Sapkale vs Varsha Pradhan, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 465

Sete Mares Global Forex Private Limited v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 466

Mahesh Motiram Kumbhar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 467

Nandkishor Sahu vs Sanjeevani Patil, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 468

Miss XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 469

Dilkhush Shrigiriwar vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 470

Narsingrao Udgirkar vs Shivaji Kalge, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 471

Rahul Lahase vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 472

L vs State of Goa, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 473

Uttam Value Steels Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 474

Mitesh Punmiya vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 475

Ramesh Gopnur vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 476

Syed Naeemuddin & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 477

The State of Goa thr. Women Police Station, Panaji vs. M, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 478

Dr Sushant Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 479

Santosh Rodrigues vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 480

Kunal Kamra vs Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 481

Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Versus The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 482

Dr Prashant Ahire vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 483

Munib Iqbal Memon vs. State, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 484

Santosh Madhukar Bhondve & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 485

Volvo Group India Pvt Ltd. versus Union of India and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 486

Uttam Value Steels Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 487

Namdeo Bansode vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 488

Mahesh Raut vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 489

HDFC Bank Limited & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 490

Shahid Akeel Shaikh vs. Union of India & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 491

Dnyaneshwar Wakale vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 492

Vijay Jawanjal vs State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 493

Industrial Development Bank of India versus DCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 494

Arshad Khalifa vs Gulzar Khalifa, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 495

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Galaxy Surfactants, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 496

Y-Not Films LLP and Anr. vs. Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 497

Sudhir Kumar Sengupta vs. Kusum Pandurang Keni, 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 498

Judgments/Final Orders:

Uddhav Thackeray Did Not Hurt Religious Sentiments, Plea Filed For Publicity: Bombay High Court Orders Man To Pay Rs 2 Lakhs To Former CM

Case Title: Mohan Chavan vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 461

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, recently held that Maharashtra's former Chief Minister and the President of the divided Shiv Sena - Uddhav Thackeray did not hurt religious sentiments by not applying the sacred ash on his forehead, presented to him by a Mahant (Priest) during a public event in Nanded.

Single-judge Justice Sanjay Mehare also imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakhs on the petitioner - Mohan Chavan and has clearly told him to pay the said hefty amount to Thakceray, via a Demand Draft (DD).

Central Charges & International Taxation Charges Are Not Excluded From Purview Of Faceless Mechanism U/s 144B R/w/s 151A: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Abhin Anilkumar Shah versus ITO

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 462

The Bombay High Court held that the faceless mechanism would be applicable to all cases of Central Charges and International Taxation charges. However, the High Court clarified that it is only the assessment proceedings which would be required to be undertaken outside the faceless mechanism.

The Division Bench of G. S. Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that “mandatory faceless procedure for issuance of notice u/s 148 falling within the purview of the scheme notified by the Central Government dated 29 March, 2022 would not exclude the Central charges and international taxation charges from the application of the faceless mechanism as notified u/s 144B read with section 151A of the Act”.

"No Intention To Disrupt Public Peace": Bombay High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Man Booked For Promoting Naxalism

Case Title: Nitin Vasantrao Bode vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 463

The Bombay High Court bench at Nagpur recently granted anticipatory bail to a man booked for supporting and promoting 'Naxalism' through his WhatsApp messages and 'instigating' people against the existing Government of India by calling upon people to 'revive Naxalism' in the country.

Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke on August 2, noted that the applicant - Nitin Bode, an insurance agent, was booked for creating tension between two groups under section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

High Court Notes "Lapses" In Mumbai Police's Probe Into Murder Of ShivSena (UBT) Corporator During FB Live, Transfers Investigation To CBI

Case title: Tejasvee Abhishek Ghosalkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 464

The Bombay High Court on Friday transferred the investigation in the murder case of Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray Faction) corporator Abhishek Ghosalkar, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Ghosalkar, 41, was shot dead during a Facebook Live by his political rival Mauris Noronha on February 8, 2024. Soon after the incident, Noronha too allegedly committed suicide.

Pointing several lapses in the initial investigation conducted by the Mumbai Police, Ghosalkar's widow Tejaswee had moved a division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Shyam Chandak seeking transfer of the probe to either a special investigation team (SIT) or the CBI.

Even Appeal For Registering FIR Under SC/ST Act Will Have To Be Video Recorded: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vijay Sapkale vs Varsha Pradhan 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 465

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently held that even the proceedings in an appeal seeking to register a First Information Report (FIR) under the stringent Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC ST), will be needed to be "video-recorded."

Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne while hearing a plea filed by one Vijay Sapkale, who sought to register an FIR against some private persons, while in an appeal, sought to video-record the proceedings.

KYC Not Done By Purchasing Party Is Not A New Fact To Reopen Proceedings: Bombay High Court Declines Reassessment

Case Title: Sete Mares Global Forex Private Limited v. Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 466

The Bombay High Court quashes reopening notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while emphasizing that unauthorized transactions are made without requisite KYC of the purchasing party cannot be said to be a fresh fact which has come to light which was not previously disclosed which tends to expose the untruthfulness of the fact.

The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Valmiki Menezes observed that “Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on the fulfilment of certain precondition and if the concept of “change of opinion” is removed, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place.”

Rising Occurrences Of Illegal Buildings Has Detrimental Impact On Public Infra, Safety: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Mahesh Motiram Kumbhar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 467

Observing that the 'rising occurrence' of illegally constructed buildings has a detrimental impact on public infrastructure, the Bombay High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a developer booked for constructing an illegal building that collapsed in July this year, in Navi Mumbai,

Single-judge Justice Rajesh Laddha noted that the applicant - Mahesh Kumbhar, has been facing allegations of constructing a four-storey building without necessary permissions and using substandard materials, violating the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act.

Maintenance Tribunals Cannot Cancel Gift Deeds Merely On 'Vague Allegations' Of Senior Citizens Against Their Children: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Nandkishor Sahu vs Sanjeevani Patil 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 468

The Bombay High Court recently held that a Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot cancel the 'gift deed' executed by a parent merely on the 'vague' allegations of 'non-maintenance' of the senior citizen by their children or the person, whom they have 'gifted' their property.

Single-judge Justice RM Joshi on August 29 quashed the December 2022 order of a Tribunal, which cancelled the 'gift deed' executed by a 73-year-old woman in favour of her elder daughter and husband, thereby, gifting two of her flats in Kolhapur to the elder daughter and husband. It noted that the senior citizen woman had made allegations that her elder daughter and her husband failed to keep their promise of maintaining her and deprived her of the basic physical need and other amenities.

Distressing To See Women Dealing With Unwanted Pregnancies Alone: Bombay High Court Mulls Over Mechanism To Ensure Accountability Of Partners

Case Title: Miss XYZ vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 469

The Bombay High Court expressed 'disturbance' over the predicament of young women, who are 'compelled' to move the court to get their 'unwanted' pregnancies terminated medically and in all this, the court said it is only the women who 'suffer' and not their 'partners.'

Therefore, to provide 'succour' to such women, the division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale has decided to determine some mechanism to facilitate involvement, accountability and participation of the man or the partner of such women, in these 'testing times.'

"Crossed All Limits Of Humanity": Bombay High Court Upholds Man's Conviction For Rape Of Mentally Challenged Girl

Case Title: Dilkhush Shrigiriwar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 470

Observing that he crossed all the limits of humanity, the Bombay High Court bench at Nagpur, recently upheld the conviction of a man for raping and impregnating a neighbourhood girl, who was suffering from Down syndrome.

Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap noted from the material on record that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant, who raped the victim having mental disability (90 per cent). The judge, noted that the accused, who is the neighbour of the victim took undue advantage of the situation.

Error Of Scrutiny Committee Validating Caste Certificate Can't Be Challenged In Election Petition: Bombay HC Dismisses Plea Against Congress MP

Case Title: Narsingrao Udgirkar vs Shivaji Kalge 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 471

The Bombay High Court bench at Aurangabad on Tuesday dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Congress leader Shivaji Kalge to the 18th Lok Sabha, from Latur constituency in Maharashtra.

Single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar noted that the petitioner failed to prove its case as Kalge successfully established that he belonged to the SC category by submitting a 'caste validity certificate' issued by the District Caste Scrutiny Committee.

It went on to hold that merely alleging fraud in obtaining judgment of the Caste Scrutiny Committee granting validity to the caste certificate of the returned candidate is not sufficient as,

"No Girl Would Accompany An Unknown Boy To A Hotel Room On Their First Meeting": Bombay High Court Acquits Man Booked For Rape

Case Title: Rahul Lahase vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 472

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court while acquitting a man convicted for raping a girl, observed that no prudent girl would ever go to a hotel room on her very first meeting with an unknown boy as the same would send "alarming" signals to the girl about the boy.

Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap refused to believe the version of the victim in a rape case, wherein the girl claimed to have met the convict through Facebook and thereafter started chatting and communicating with each other on the phone.

Bombay HC Quashes Rape Case Against Goa's Popular Musician, Says Victim Was 'Sufficiently Mature' To Understand Consequences Of Relationship

Case Title: L vs State of Goa

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 473

The Bombay High Court while quashing a First Information of Report (FIR) lodged against a popular musician at Goa for allegedly raping a woman on the false promise of marriage, observed that the woman was 'sufficiently mature' to understand the consequences of such a 'consensual' relationship.

A division bench of Justices Makarand Karnik and Valmiki Menezes noted that the complainant in the case had stated that she met the petitioner musician at a music fest in Panaji in October 2023. Since then the duo became good friends and continued chatting on social media platform -Instagram.

Past Tax Claims Against Corporate Debtor Stands Extinguished Consequent To Approval Of Resolution Plan Under IBC: Bombay HC

Case Title: Uttam Value Steels Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 474

Since upon the completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), the Assessee has changed hands and commenced under a new ownership and management, the Bombay High Court held that tax proceedings pertain to period prior to the CIRP, and consequent to the approval of the resolution plan, the tax proceedings stand extinguished.

The Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that “provisions outlined in Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) stipulates that approval of resolution plan by the adjudicating authority is binding on Central Government and its agencies in respect of any statutory dues arising under any law for the time being in force, thus binding tax authorities and their enforcement actions”.

Customer In A Bar Encouraging Women To Dance In Obscene Manner Cannot Be Booked U/S 294 IPC: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Mitesh Punmiya vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 475

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 10) while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man under Section 294 IPC (Obscene acts and songs) noted that he was only shown to be 'encouraging' the women in the bar to dance in an 'obscene' manner.

A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale held that the mere 'encouraging' of women in the dance bar to dance in an obscene manner, will not attract provisions of section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The bench said that in order to attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 294, it is necessary that, the accused person indulges in doing any obscene act in a public place or singing, reciting or uttering any obscene song in or near a public place.

Bombay High Court Upholds Life Sentence Of Man Convicted For Sexually Abusing Five Minor Girls

Case Title: Ramesh Gopnur vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 476

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (September 11) upheld the conviction and the life sentence imposed on a 40-year-old man, who was convicted for sexually abusing at least five minor girls.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan upheld the March 29, 2014 judgment of a special court in Thane, which convicted Ramesh Gopnur for raping five minor girls and sentenced him to life imprisonment under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the relevant provisions of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Officers Appointed To Assess Electricity Theft Are 'Public Servants', Court Can't Issue Process Against Them Without Sanction U/S 197 CrPC: Bombay HC

Case title: Syed Naeemuddin & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 477

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has observed that the officers appointed by a government authority to detect and assess theft of electricity under the Electricity Act, 2003 are 'public servants' under Section 169 of the Act and thus a previous sanction of a concerned authority as provided in Section 197 CrPC is necessary before issuing process against such officers.

A single judge bench of Justice S.G. Mehare observed that “The appropriate government or the MSEB Board has authorized the Junior Engineer and linemen to find out the theft of the electricity. Since the persons who were authorized to detect the theft of the electricity and to provisionally assess the amount of theft, it can be accepted that such persons are covered under Section 169 of the Electricity Act, 2003.”

Bombay High Court Quashes Children's Court Order Discharging Father For Sexual Assault Against Daughter On Ground That Victim Was Not Minor

Case title: The State of Goa thr. Women Police Station, Panaji vs. M

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 478

The Goa Bench of the Bombay Hugh Court set-aside an order of the Children's Court, which discharged an accused for sexual assault against his daughter on the ground that she was not a minor under the Goa Children's Act on the day of the alleged incident.

Justice Bharat P. Deshpande was considering the State's revision application against the order of the Children's Court, which discharged the respondent/accused for child abuse/sexual assault under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act.

Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Trustees Booked For Providing 'Bogus' Doctors To BMC-Run Hospital

Case Title: Dr Sushant Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 479

The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a doctor and trustees of a Trust that supplied 'bogus doctors' to a Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) hospital situated in Mumbai's Mulund area, wherein 149 people allegedly died from 2018 till May 2023.

Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale granted bail to Dr Sushan Jadhav, Birendra Yadav and Deepak Jain - all booked under charges of murder, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy, forgery, impersonation, fraud etc.

Waiter Serving Food & Drinks In Bar Where Women Are Dancing Cannot Be Booked For Obscenity U/S 294 Of IPC: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Santosh Rodrigues vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 480

The Bombay High Court on Thursday held that a waiter in a Bar and Restaurant, where women are dancing in obscene manner, cannot be booked for the offence of 'obscenity' as s/he is merely performing their duty of serving food and drinks as per their employment profile.

A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) against one Santosh Rodrigues, a resident of Malad in Mumbai, noted that he was working as a waiter in the New Park Side Bar and Restaurant as on April 14, 2016, when the Social Service Branch of the Mumbai Police conducted a raid and arrested several persons including the petitioner.

Citizens Have 'Right To Free Speech', Not State's Burden To Ensure That They Only Know Truth: Bombay HC On IT Amendment Rules

Case Title: Kunal Kamra vs Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 481

The Bombay High Court's 'Tie-Breaker' Judge Justice Atul Chandurkar, while opining that the amendments to the Information and Technology Rules, 2021 are 'unconstitutional' held that the citizens only have the 'right to free speech and expression' but not a 'right to truth' and thus the State cannot claim to have a responsibility to ensure that citizens know only 'truth' and not 'fake or false information.'

Out Of Two Right Answers, Bombay High Court Allows MPSC To Treat Only One As Correct To Avoid Burdening The Commission And Disturb The Selection Of Candidates

Case Title Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Versus The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 482

The Bombay High Court Bench of Aurangabad has set aside the judgement of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which directed the Maharashtra Public Service Commission to recount the marks of candidates who appeared for the Sub-Registrar/Stamp Inspector (Grade-1) position test.

A Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Y. G. Khobragade observed that re-evaluation would modify the marks of candidates leading in an overall change in the merit list causing cancellation of appointment orders and resulting in the Commission being overburdened. Therefore, the Division Bench decided to treat one out of the two correct answers for awarding marks.

Bombay High Court Flags Rise In Frivolous Cases Against Doctors For 'Unjust' Compensation

Case Title: Dr Prashant Ahire vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 483

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court while quashing a medical negligence case against a doctor, highlighted the increased rate of bogus prosecutions initiated against medical practitioners to extract 'unjust and uncalled for' compensation.

A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Santosh Chapalgaonkar noted that the applicant in the case was accused of prescribing an 'irrational combination' of modern medicines (allopathic medicines) despite him being an Ayurvedic practitioner.

Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Accused In Pune Serial Blasts Case After He Spent 11 Years In Jail Without Trial

Case Title: Munib Iqbal Memon vs. State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 484

The Bombay High Court on Friday granted bail to a 42-year-old tailor, booked for allegedly conspiring and executing the serial bomb blasts in Pune in August 2012 for taking revenge of the custodial death of a terrorist of the banned Indian Mujahideen outfit.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sharmila Deshmukh noted that the appellant Munib Memon has been in custody for around 11 and a half years since his arrest in December 2012.

Bombay High Court Upholds Allotment Of 'Gairan' Land For Construction Of Housing Under Prime Minister Awas Yojana

Case title: Santosh Madhukar Bhondve & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 485

The Bombay High Court has upheld the validity of the allotment of 'Gairan land' by the District Collector to the Municipal Corporation for the construction of houses for economically weaker section of society under the 'Prime Minister Awas Yojana' on the ground that under Section 40 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC), the State government has the right to dispose of any government land, including 'gairan land'.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar was considering the petitioners' challenge to the District Collector's order, where a piece of land at Mauje Ravet, Taluka Haveli, Pune District was allotted to Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (respondent no. 4) for development of affordable housing under the scheme of Prime Minister Awas Yojana (PMAY).

Non-Filing Of Declaration & Input-Output Ratio Is Procedural Requirement But Not Pre-Condition For Claiming Rebate On Excise Of Exported Goods: Bombay HC

Case Title: Volvo Group India Pvt Ltd. versus Union of India and Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 486

The Bombay High Court recently clarified that just because the verification of input-output ratio was not submitted before the export of goods, it does not mean that same cannot be verified post export of goods.

While giving such relaxation, the Division Bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the procedure for submitting input-output ratio is inconsequential for claiming rebate under Central Excise Act when the claim of petitioner/ assessee is only qua excise duty paid on chassis purchased and used in the manufacture of buses which are exported.

Initiating Tax Proceedings After CIRP Approval Violates Section 31 IBC: Bombay High Court

Case: Uttam Value Steels Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 487

The Bombay High court held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, it is binding on all creditors, including government authorities, such as the Income Tax Department.

A Division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni & Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan emphasized that all claims, including tax liabilities that were not part of the approved resolution plan, are extinguished, and no fresh proceedings can be initiated for claims related to the period before the CIRP.

Any And Every Cruelty Or Harassment Of Wife Will Not Attract Section 498A Of IPC: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Namdeo Bansode vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 488

The Bombay High Court on Monday (September 23) while acquitting a husband convicted for abetting the suicide of his wife by torturing her, held that section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not attract in any and every harassment or type of cruelty. Single-judge Justice Sanjay Mehare sitting at Aurangabad held that to convict a person under section 498A, the prosecution must establish 'continuous' harassment.

Imprisonment Does Not Restrict Individual's Right To Pursue Education: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Mahesh Raut vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 489

The Bombay High Court recently observed that imprisonment of an individual does not restrict his or her right to education.

A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale made the observation while ordering a Mumbai-based Law College, to admit Mahesh Raut, one of the accused in the Bhima-Koregaon case, as a student for the LLB course for the academic year 2024-2027.

Bombay High Court Quashes State Minorities Commission's Notice To HDFC Bank On Complaint Of Jain Community Member Alleging Harassment

Case title: HDFC Bank Limited & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 490

The Bombay High Court has quashed a show-cause notice issued by the Maharashtra State Minorities Commission to the HDFC Bank about a complaint raised by a member of the Jain community alleging harassment by the bank, on the ground that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande stated that the complaint was an attempt to 'short-circuit' the procedure adopted the HDFC bank against its borrowers. It noted that a member cannot approach the Commission only on the pretext of being a minority, in order to circumvent lawful orders passed by a competent authority.

Inadvertent Error Selecting Wrong Option In Application Form: Bombay High Court Directs Admission Of Disabled Candidate To MBBS Course

Case title: Shahid Akeel Shaikh vs. Union of India & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 491

The Bombay High Court has directed a Government Medical College in Maharashtra to admit a candidate with disabilities to its MBBS course, who had inadvertently selected the 'no' option in the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) column of the online application form and as a result was not examined for his disability status.

A division bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Jusitce Kamal Khata noted that the petitioner's error was bonafide and unintentional. It observed that he has neither secured any undue advantage nor misled any authorities. Further, the error has not caused or does not have the potential of causing any prejudice to any candidate interested in obtaining admission to the PwD-OBC category.

Not Every Forward Can Be Interpreted For Creating Rift In Society; People Should Restrain From Forwarding Everything They Receive: Bombay HC

Case Title: Dnyaneshwar Wakale vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 492

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently held that each forward of an objectionable post on WhatsApp or any other social media platform, cannot be interpreted to have been done to create unrest in the society or two groups of people.

The observation were made while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man, booked for forwarding an objectionable post against Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar to few of his WhatsApp contacts. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Santosh Chapalgaonkar said that people must exercise self restraint and avoid forwarding whatever they receive on their WhatsApp.

Minor Girl If Subjected To Rape Will Be Terrified, Won't Act Normal: Bombay High Court Acquits Man In POCSO Case

Case Title: Vijay Jawanjal vs State of Maharashtra 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 493

A minor girl subjected to sexual assault would normally be 'terrified' and not 'act normal and play', the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court observed recently while acquitting a 64-year-old man convicted for sexually assaulting a minor girl. Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap noted from the testimony of the girl's mother that the girl was allegedly sexually assaulted by the applicant in a Samaj Mandir (community hall) and when she went to the hall, the victim girl was playing.

Scheduled Commercial Bank Had Utilized Opening Balance In Bad Debts Account To Reduce Total Bad Debts Written Off: Bombay HC Allows Benefit Of Sec 36(1)(Vii)

Case Title: Industrial Development Bank of India versus DCIT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 494

The Bombay High Court held that deduction claimed by bank u/s 36(1)(vii) in respect of write off bad debts is allowable without any adjustment to the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) which was adjusted with the bad debts claimed in the subsequent AY.

The Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that “It is inconceivable that the amount of bad debts claimed as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) could have any bearing so as to require any deduction/ subtraction from the provision for bad debts, made by the assessee u/s 36(1)(viia)”.

Art.4(8) Law Of Divorce | Wife Refusing To Live With Husband And His Paramour Doesn't Mean She "Freely Consented" To Separation: Bombay HC

Case Title: Arshad Khalifa vs Gulzar Khalifa

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 495

A husband insisting a wife to live in the house where he lives with his paramour is a good enough reason for her to stay separately and this 'separation' cannot be regarded as the wife's 'free consent' to separation, to afford a ground to the husband to seek divorce under the Law of Divorce (Divorce Act, 1910), ruled the Bombay High Court at Goa, recently.

Single-judge Justice Makarand Karanik noted that the husband in the instant case, claimed that his wife abandoned him and refused to join the conjugal relationship in May 1993, which was just within a year of their marriage, which was registered in November 1992. The judge noted from the material on record that the husband was living his another woman, with whom he had an affair even prior to his marriage with the respondent wife and has two sons from her.

Capital Asset Financed By Foreign Currency Loan Can Be Capitalized U/s 43A If Such Asset Was Imported From Abroad: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Galaxy Surfactants

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 496

While explaining that Section 43A is a non-obstante provision, which positively imposes an obligation notwithstanding anything contained in the Income tax Act, the Bombay High Court held that losses due to exchange rate changes on a foreign currency loan taken for import of a capital asset must not be treated as revenue expenditure.

While explaining that Section 43A is a non-obstante provision, which positively imposes an obligation notwithstanding anything contained in the Income tax Act, the Bombay High Court held that losses due to exchange rate changes on a foreign currency loan taken for import of a capital asset must not be treated as revenue expenditure.

[Commercial Courts Act] IPR Suits Involving Infringement Can Be Ordinarily Instituted Without Exhausting Mediation U/S 12-A: Bombay HC

Case title: Y-Not Films LLP and Anr. vs. Ultra Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 497

The Bombay High Court has observed that a plea of urgent interim relief by bypassing pre-litigation mediation as stipulated under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, can be rejected only in cases of deception or falsity apparent from the plaint itself.

With respect IPR suits involving infringement or passing off, A single judge bench of Justice R.I. Chagla stated that such suits could be ordinarily instituted without exhausting the pre-litigation mediation requirement under Section 12-A of the C.C. Act.

Tenant Cannot Escape Eviction U/S 12(3)(a) Of Bombay Rent Act In Absence Of Any Valid Dispute About Rent Amount Or Increases: High Court

Case title: Sudhir Kumar Sengupta vs. Kusum Pandurang Keni

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 498

The Bombay High Court has observed that in the absence of any dispute by a tenant about the amount of standard rent or permitted increases, the tenant cannot escape eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act if the rent has not been paid within the specified time.

A single judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne further observed that a Trial Court cannot look into the issue of 'readiness and willingness to pay rent' of the tenant, if there is no dispute about the amount of rent payable.