Nominal Index [Citation 283 - 296]Dattaram Govind Naik v. State of Goa 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 283Ranjana Pagar-Gawande v. Nivrutti Kashinath Deshmukh and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 284JIV Maitri Trust v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 285Darshan Subhash Nandagawali v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 286S S Hemani v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 287I Am...
Nominal Index [Citation 283 - 296]
Dattaram Govind Naik v. State of Goa 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 283
Ranjana Pagar-Gawande v. Nivrutti Kashinath Deshmukh and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 284
JIV Maitri Trust v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 285
Darshan Subhash Nandagawali v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 286
S S Hemani v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 287
I Am The Ocean, LLC v. Registrar Of Trade Marks 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 288
Prakash B. Kamat v. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 289
Vijay Arvind Pore v. Rupali Ramdas Deshmukh and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 290
Eknath Shankar Kamble v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 291
Ramhari Dagadu Shinde and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 292
GET and D India Ltd Versus Union of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 293
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 294
Regional Manager, Union Bank of India and Anr. v. M/s Punya Coal Road Lines and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 295
Brihanmumbai Police Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 296
Reports/Judgments
Case Title: Dattaram Govind Naik v. State of Goa
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 283
The Bombay High Court, Goa Bench held that when the legal heirs of the deceased license holder applied for cancellation, the excise commissioner was duty-bound to cancel it.
The bench of Justice Bharat P. Deshpande observed that the transfer of liquor licenses is at the discretion of the concerned authority.
Case Title: Ranjana Pagar-Gawande v. Nivrutti Kashinath Deshmukh and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 284
Religious discourse on techniques to conceive and identify a male foetus prima facie is an offence under the anti-sex determination PCPNDT Act, the Bombay High Court has held while refusing to quash a case against Marathi preacher (kirtankar) Nivrutti Kashinath Deshmukh (Indorikar). Deshmukh allegedly asked couples to perform sexual intercourse on even days for a male child.
Justice Kishore Sant observed that ‘advertisement’ under Sections 6 and 22 (1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (PCPNDT Act) cannot be restricted to diagnostics centres and must be given a wider meaning.
It would include anyone propagating techniques for foetus’s sex selection, the court said.
Bombay High Court Directs State To Allow E-Complaints For Illegal Animal Slaughter
Case Title: JIV Maitri Trust v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 285
The Bombay High Court directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to prominently display its policy regarding animal sacrifice during religious ceremonies, as well as the e-mail address and toll-free numbers for complaints on its website, at least during festivals where such animals’ sacrifice/slaughtering takes place.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sandeep Marne also directed BMC to make the grievance redressal forum regarding animal slaughters available to the citizens by way of email.
Case Title: Darshan Subhash Nandagawali v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 286
The Bombay High Court pulled up a prosecutor attached to a Special MCOCA Court for copying the investigating officer's (IO) request for extension of time to file charge sheet in a case word-for-word in his own application for extension filed before the court.
A division bench of Justice Bharat Deshpande and Justice Vinay Joshi sitting at Nagpur while granting bail to a twenty-year-old organised crime accused held that the public prosecutor completely failed in his duty as he did not record independent reasons for supporting the IO’s request for extension.
Case Title: S S Hemani v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 287
Granting relief to certain borrowers in a batch of petitions, the Bombay High Court stayed till September 11 the action taken by various banks after declaring their accounts as “fraudulent accounts” without prior notice and a hearing.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Neela Gokhale relied on the Supreme Court’s order in State Bank of India & Ors v. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors. that read the principles of natural justice into the RBI’s master directions on fraud. This meant accounts couldn’t be declared as fraudulent accounts sans a hearing and notice.
The bench clarified that the banks were at liberty to rescind, withdraw or cancel any orders already passed under the Master Circular declaring accounts as fraudulent accounts without hearing and to re-initiate the process in line with the SC’s decision.
Case Title: I Am The Ocean, LLC v. Registrar Of Trade Marks
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 288
The Bombay High Court came down heavily on Registrar of Trade Marks and the Senior Examiner for failing to consider submissions and pass reasoned orders before denying registration of trademarks, calling it a “complete abdication” of their quasi-judicial functions.
A single bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla set aside an order of the Senior Examiner of Trade Mark’s refusing registration in one such case and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The court directed him to consider the applicant’s submissions and pass a reasoned order.
The court added that the replies were filed with “application of mind” and the “least expected” was that the adjudicating officer would “peruse the reply and extend to it the bare courtesy of application of mind.”
Director Proves Lack Of Control On Financial Affairs: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Recovery
Case Title: Prakash B. Kamat v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 289
The Bombay High Court quashed the income tax recovery against the Director of a company on the grounds that the Director has sufficiently discharged the burden cast upon him in terms of Section 179(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice M.M. Sathaye observed that the Director has brought on record material to show a lack of financial control, a lack of decision-making power, and a very limited role in the assessee company even as a director.
Case Title: Vijay Arvind Pore v. Rupali Ramdas Deshmukh and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 290
Merely because a gas company's name was written on a truck and it was used to transport gas cylinders does not mean that the truck was actually carrying gas cylinders at the time of the accident, the Bombay High Court observed. The court found breach of policy conditions could not be proved and thereby directed anthe insurance company to pay compensation to the family of deceased in a motor accident.
Justice Shivkumar Dige held that since there was nothing to show that the offending truck was carrying hazardous goods, the terms of the insurance policy were not breached just because the driver did not have a license for carrying hazardous goods.
Case Title: Eknath Shankar Kamble v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 291
The Bombay High Court held that just because the expression ‘benefit of doubt’ has been used in a judgment acquitting a person, does not mean that the acquittal was not honourable and the person is disentitled to have his suspension period treated as period of duty for the purpose of determining pension.
Justice NJ Jamadar observed that the reasoning in the judgement has to be seen in its entirety to determine the nature of the acquittal. The bench directed the suspension period of an employee who was suspended due to bribery allegations, to be treated as period on duty.
Case Title: Ramhari Dagadu Shinde and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 292
Change in social policy after change in government is part of a democratic process and cannot be charged as arbitrary or mala fide, the Bombay High Court recently observed.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale upheld Eknath Shinde government’s order cancelling appointment of two members and the chairman of the Maharashtra State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes appointed by the Uddhav Thakeray government in 2021.
The court held that appointments made purely on the government’s discretion without following any competitive process can be cancelled by the government’s executive order without giving any justification.
Bombay High Court Allows BOCW Cess Refund On Supply Portion Of Contract
Case Title: GET and D India Ltd Versus Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 293
The Bombay High Court allowed the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare (BOCW) Cess refund on the supply portion of the contract.
The bench of Justice G.S. Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that a contractor who enters into a pure Supply Contract is statutorily exempt from levy under the BOCW Act.
Domestic Violence Act | Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance Even After Divorce: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 294
The Bombay High Court held that a Muslim woman can seek relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) even after divorce.
Justice GA Sanap of the Nagpur bench dismissed a man’s revision application against sessions court order enhancing maintenance to his wife in a domestic violence case.
Case Title: Regional Manager, Union Bank of India and Anr. v. M/s Punya Coal Road Lines and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 295
The Bombay High Court held that once a secured creditor issues demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the civil court’s jurisdiction is barred, and any challenge to the notice comes under the domain of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
Justice MS Jawalkar rejected a borrower’s civil suit alleging that the bank violated Guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Lenders and Fair Lending Practices Code while classifying the loan account as a non-performing asset (NPA) observing that the borrower can raise these grounds in defence in the bank’s recovery suit before the DRT.
The court set aside trial court’s order refusing to reject two civil suits by a borrower against bank alleging that the bank acted illegally by not deciding proposal for restructuring of loan accounts as well as violating specific RBI circulars.
Case Title: Brihanmumbai Police Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 296
The Bombay High Court held that when a loan was sanctioned by the management committee of a cooperative society, a committee member who merely signed the disbursement cheque cannot be held liable for financial loss caused by a fraudulent loan applicant.
Justice Milind Jadhav observed that the entire management committee is responsible in such a case and dismissed a writ petition filed by a society of police employees seeking to make the signatory of disbursement cheques liable for the loss caused by fraudulent applicant.
Other Developments
The Bombay High Court granted temporary relief to MLA Ravindra Waikar from Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) party and directed status quo for two weeks regarding cancellation of permission granted to him and four others to build a luxury hotel in Mumbai.
A division bench of Justice Sunil Shukre and Rajesh Patil however objected to certain statements made by Waikar in his petition and asked why was the issue being politicized.
However, the bench directed the BMC to respond to the plea filed by Waikar and four others, and posted the matter after two weeks.
Case Title: Unichem Laboratories Limited versus Union of India and Ors.
The Bombay High Court directed the local planning authority and state prison officials to ensure separate clean drinking water for Taloja Central prison inmates at the earliest.
The division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse was informed that there was severe water shortage with inmates receiving just 1-1.5 buckets of unclean water a day for drinking, washing clothes and utensils, bathing as well as toilet facilities.
The court further gave the State two weeks to take instructions regarding steps to ensure there is adequate water supply, specifically regarding the Sewage Treatment Plant. The State is required to report on the exact daily water supply.
The Bombay High Court pulled up the Central and State governments for delay in procurement of working mobile phones compatible with the POSHAN Tracker app for Anganwadi workers in the State.
A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Neela Gokhale said –
“The process must be corrected, and that correction begins by procuring, taking delivery, and distributing working mobile phones or handsets compatible with the POSHAN Tracker app. Both Governments are advised to prioritise this matter, not leave it to the Court, and not to precipitate a situation where the Court is compelled to fix a timeline for this to be completed”.
The Bombay High Court asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to produce the case diary before it took a decision whether to continue or vacate an interim order protecting former NCB officer Sameer Wankhede from arrest in Rs 25 Crore extortion case regarding the arrest of Aryan Khan in the 2021 Cruise Ship Drugs Case.
The bench comprising Justices AS Gadkari and SG Dige directed the CBI to produce the case diary by June 27 and posted the matter for hearing the next day. It extended the protection earlier granted to the officer.
After a nudge from the Bombay High Court, the Mumbai Police transferred the complaint filed by two advocates alleging assault inside the police station from Antop Hill to Matunga Police Division.
A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse accepted the DCP Statement that the Assistant Commissioner of Police from the Matunga division would investigate the complaint and submit a report by June 3.