Nominal Index [Citation 34 – 43]Amit Satish Dhutia v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 34Sesa Sterlite Ltd. v. State of Goa 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 35Abhishek s/o Vinodsingh Thakur and Anr v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 36Shera Noshir (@ Naushir) Vajifdar v. Bank of Baroda and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 37Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citation 34 – 43]
Amit Satish Dhutia v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 34
Sesa Sterlite Ltd. v. State of Goa 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 35
Abhishek s/o Vinodsingh Thakur and Anr v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 36
Shera Noshir (@ Naushir) Vajifdar v. Bank of Baroda and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 37
Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 38
Shri Shanmukhananda Fine Arts v. Deputy Director of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 39
Satyen Kapadia v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 40
Novex Communications Pvt Ltd. v. Trade Wings Hotel Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 41
Neelam Ajit v. ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 42
Cecilia Reynold D'souza & Ors. v. Ruby Cyril D'souza & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 43
Reports/Judgments
Case Title: Amit Satish Dhutia v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 34
The Bombay High Court refused to quash a case registered against a Bandra resident for allegedly ordering the felling of a Tamarind tree without prior permission, resulting in the death of several birds and the destruction of their eggs.
Justices AS Gadkari and Shyam Chandak dismissed the criminal application filed by Amit Dhutia observing that prima facie a case was made out against Dhutia.
The case was initiated on a complaint filed against Abhishek Soparkar Dhutia who was booked under Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC, along with Sections 9 and 51 of The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and Sections 8 and 21 of Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 registered with Khar Police Station, Mumbai.
It was alleged he had affected the illegal chopping of a Tamarind tree located inside the compound of Petit School near the applicant's residential society building (Nector CHSL). It was alleged that such felling caused injury to birds and destruction of their nests.
Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Goa Cess Act
Case Title: Sesa Sterlite Ltd. v. State of Goa
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 35
The Bombay High Court upheld the Goa Rural Improvement and Welfare Cess Act, 2000 (Goa Cess Act). The Act imposes cess on carriers transporting scheduled materials including coal, coke, sand, debris, garbage, packaged water, mineral ore etc. in Goa.
The court accepted the state's argument that materials listed in the Act's schedule cause pollution and emphasized the state's responsibility to balance economic interests and development with the preservation of natural resources and environmental protection. It held that the state had legislative power to enact laws addressing adverse effects on health caused by human activities.
Case Title: Abhishek s/o Vinodsingh Thakur and Anr v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 36
The Bombay High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to two individuals accused of cheating the Forest Department out of booking amount received from tourists for online booking of jungle safari in Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Nagpur bench, while rejecting anticipatory bail application of Abhishek and Rohitkumar Thakur, partners of the firm Wild Connectivity Solutions (WCS), observed –
“Considering the role of applicants in the crime having involved enormous and huge amount, siphoning of the amount and fabrication of digital data, and the investigation revealing the manner in which the forest department is duped and the government money is at stake, the role of the applicants is clearly exposed. In the background of accusations and its gravity, applicants are not entitled for being released on bail in the event of their arrest.”
The applicants are accused under Sections 420, 406, and 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Shera Noshir (@ Naushir) Vajifdar v. Bank of Baroda and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 37
The Bombay High Court issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against the Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda (Fort), Rakesh Garg, in a testamentary matter wherein a spinster bequeathed her movable assets to her caretaker.
Justice Manish Pitale passed the order in an interim application filed by the 49-year-old caretaker who alleged that despite a probated Will in his favor, three banks were refusing to cooperate.
Previously, the court had issued notices to all three banks. While counsel appeared for Punjab National Bank (PNB) and Central Bank of India (CBI) on January 3, 2024, and assured cooperation from their end, none appeared for Bank of Baroda.
The court noted that neither of the banks had filed responses and that there was still no representation from the Bank of Baroda.
Accordingly, the court granted PNB and CBI a last chance to file their affidavits in the matter and issued an NBW against the Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda.
Case Title: Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 38
The Bombay High Court held that alleged offences which are under investigation, and for which a chargesheet has not been filed cannot be considered for passing an externment order against the accused.
Justice NJ Jamadar quashed and set aside an externment order against one Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad observing that the externing authority considered two crimes against him even though the charge sheets had not been filed yet.
Case Title: Shri Shanmukhananda Fine Arts v. Deputy Director of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 39
The Bombay High Court held that the AO has no jurisdiction to assess or reassess any income, which was the subject matter of an appeal.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale has observed that since the grant of benefit under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was the subject matter of appeal and has been held in favour of the assessee, the matter cannot be reopened.
Case Title: Satyen Kapadia v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 40
The Bombay High Court accepted the Maharashtra Government's statement that they have not yet made a final decision about building a theme park or renewing the lease of the turf club on the 221-acre Mahalaxmi Racecourse.
A division bench comprising Justices GS Patel and Kamal Khata refused to immediately interfere with the Chief Minister's statement dated December 6, 2023, directing the Royal Western India Turf Club (RWITC), to hold an extraordinary general body meeting on January 31, 2024, and vote on a proposal for new terms of their lease. The lease of RWITC which runs the racecourse, expired in 2013.
Observing it could not pre-empt or ask the State to make a decision one way or the other, the court clarified all contentions were kept open.
Copyright Assignees Like PPL & Novex Are 'Owners', Can Issue Music License Without Being Registered Copyright Societies U/S 33(1) Of Copyright Act: Bombay HC
Case Title: Novex Communications Pvt Ltd. v. Trade Wings Hotel Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 41
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court has held that music rights holders like Phonographic Performance Ltd and Novex are copyright owners and can issue music licenses even if they are not registered as copyright societies under Section 33(1) of the Copyrights Act.
PPL and Novex are two companies that have acquired music assignments from producers like Tips, T-Series, Eros etc and are the exclusive licensees of these titles for the purpose of on-ground performance rights.
Justice R.I. Chagla ruled that "Section 33(1) of the Act cannot curtail the power of the owner to grant any interest in the copyright by license under Section 30 of the Act."
The court's decision grants greater flexibility to the companies and upholds the primacy of Section 30 which empowers copyright owners to grant licenses for their works. The court disagreed with the Madras HC's view in Novex Communications Vs. DXC Technology Pvt. Ltd. which distinguished between granting licenses in an individual capacity and carrying on the business of licensing.
Bombay High Court Directs Dept. To Accept Declaration Under VsV Act
Case Title: Neelam Ajit v. ACIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 42
The Bombay High Court at Goa directed the department to accept the declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VsV Act).
The bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes has observed that the delay alleged on the part of the Petitioner is hardly 11 days. The alleged deficit payment, if any, is of hardly 2,21,862. However, even if it is assumed that there was some marginal delay, this delay is attributable to the technical glitches and also the mistakes of the Respondents in processing the Petitioner's declaration.
The Petitioner/assessee filed a declaration under the VsV Act in Form 1 giving particulars of tax arrears and amounts payable in respect of the pending Income Tax dispute for Assessment Year 2017-18. Since the outstanding tax demand was 235,94,164/-, the amount under the VsV Act was computed at 14,04,620 after adjustment of the amount of 28,14,000, which the Petitioner already paid to the department.
Case Title: Cecilia Reynold D'souza & Ors. v. Ruby Cyril D'souza & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 43
The Bombay High Court held that the issue of voidness of a bequest under Section 67 Indian Succession Act in a Will due to the beneficiary being the spouse of the witness is outside the jurisdiction of the Testamentary Court in proceedings for Probate of Will or Letters of Administration with Will annexed.
Justice Manish Pitale rejected an application filed by the daughters of a deceased man seeking to add in a testamentary suit an additional issue pertaining to voiding the bequest to the son of the deceased as the daughter-in-law was the witness to the Will. The court said that this issue should be addressed in separate proceedings.
Other Developments
A trademark infringement suit has been filed in the Bombay High Court by Kewal Kiran Clothing Limited against Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP and Macguffin Pictures LLP for alleged infringement of their registered 'KILLER' trademark.
Kewal Kiran, a major apparel manufacturer and retailer in India, claims to be the proprietor of the 'KILLER' trademark registered across various classes including clothing, retail services, advertising etc. since the early 2000s. As per the application, Kewal Kiran's 'KILLER' brand has acquired substantial reputation and goodwill over the years through sales, advertising and quality.
Kewal Kiran states it recently became aware of Netflix web series titled 'KILLER SOUP' produced by Macguffin Pictures. Kewal Kiran argues that 'KILLER SOUP' is identical to their 'KILLER' mark, and the defendants have dishonestly copied their mark entirely to trade upon their reputation and goodwill. This is likely to deceive the public and cause Kewal Kiran irreparable harm and damage. Kewal Kiran has prima facie case with a strong balance of convenience in their favor against Netflix and Macguffin's blatant infringement, the plea states.
The Maharashtra Government and the BMC informed the Bombay High Court that petitions against a proposed theme park on 120 acres of Mahalaxmi Racecourse are “premature” and replete with speculation as a final decision isn't taken yet.
The Advocate General for the State emphasized that the minutes of a meeting dated 6th December 2023 between the Chief Minister, Municipal Commissioner and representatives of Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd (RWITC) which operates part of the race course, displayed only a “vision.”
“According to us the petition is premature. We are on the stage of consideration and no final decision has been made. The minutes that they refer to is a proposed course of action. The minutes say, RWITC will take a decision and make a proposal, which will be considered at various levels.”
Regarding the remaining land, the government will decide what use to put it to by following proper procedure by floating tenders, he added.
The Bombay High Court recorded the Maharashtra Government's statement that all necessary measures will be taken to prevent the blockage of public roads or inconvenience to commuters during the Maratha Reservation protests.
The court issued notice to activist Manoj Jarange Patil returnable on February 14, 2024.
Patil, who has been advocating for Maratha Reservation from the OBC quota, began a protest from Jalna on January 20.
A division bench comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Shyam Chandak were hearing a petition filed by one Gunratan Sadavarte against the protest.
The State informed the court that so far no permission has been taken for protest at a particular place. AG Birendra Saraf on instructions submitted that the State will follow the legal position enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, In Re) Vs. Commissioner of Police And Ors, (2020), and in particular para Nos.17 to 19 and 21 thereof.