Nominal Index Sanjeev Kumar Versus UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 170 Mohd. Luthpura Vajidali Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 171 Adv. Firoz Babulal Sayyed Vs. The Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 172 Dr P Varavara Rao & othrs vs State of Maharashtra and othrs 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 173 Mubeen Kadar Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra,...
Nominal Index
Sanjeev Kumar Versus UOI 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 170
Mohd. Luthpura Vajidali Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 171
Adv. Firoz Babulal Sayyed Vs. The Union of India & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 172
Dr P Varavara Rao & othrs vs State of Maharashtra and othrs 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 173
Mubeen Kadar Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra, and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 174
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. , with connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 175
Alnesh Akil Somji Versus The State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 176
Govind Ramling Solpure and Ors. versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 177
Omkar Mahadeo Supekar vs MCGM 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 178
Armstrong Pure Water Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India and others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 179
Amol Kashinath Vyavhare Versus Purnima Chaugule Shrirangi And Others 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 180
Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Versus UOI
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 170
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice S.G. Mehare and Justice R.D. Dhanuka has allowed 6% interest to the assessee on wrongful withholding of the amount by the income tax department.
Based on orders passed by the Supreme Court and Delhi high Court the bench said that "the assessee who is deprived of refund of their amount in view of wrongful withholding of their amount by the authority cannot be refused to compensate for such wrongful deprivation of their amount lying with the authority for no fault of the assessees."
Case Title: Mohd. Luthpura Vajidali Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 171
The Bombay High Court decided a labour contractor's appeal, a year after the 30-year-old man had served his complete 10-year-sentence and was released from the central Prison.
The bench of Justice PD Naik upheld Luthpura Shaikh's conviction only for seven years regarding possession of counterfeit currency (489-B of IPC) and acquitted him for graver charges attracting the 10-year-sentence.
Case Title - Adv. Firoz Babulal Sayyed Vs. The Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 172
The Bombay High Court dismissed an Advocate's PIL seeking directions for a policy restricting publication of photographs of gods and goddesses in the newspapers as they ultimately land up in the garbage bin.
The bench held that the matter was entirely within the domain of the legislature, or to a limited extent, within the domain of the executive. The bench restated, that a writ petition would lie only if a legally protected right, which is judicially enforceable, is abrogated or infringed or is threatened to be abrogated or infringed by arbitrary executive action.
Case Title – Dr P Varavara Rao & othrs vs State of Maharashtra and othrs
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 173
The Bombay High Court held re-hearing of the matter on a point which was not at all urged, is impermissible in law, under the guise of review. Nor can review be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or canvassing a totally new submission.
The bench thus rejected a review application filed by three accused in the Bhima Koregaon – Elgar Parishad Case seeking default bail alleging factual corrections in the order refusing them default bail.
The fact that the accused had also filed for default was not argued before the court.
"We, therefore, find it difficult to accede to the submission on behalf of the applicants that a factual error had crept in… It is trite that disguised as a review, it is not permissible even for an erroneous decision to be, "re-heard and corrected".
Case Title: Mubeen Kadar Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra, and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 174
The Bombay High Court has directed the Special Court to re-adjudicate the plea of an accused seeking to drop charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against 23 men arrested over 13-14 years ago in the Indian Mujahideen Case.
A division bench observed that an application seeking to drop certain charges was pending before the trial court when charges were framed in 2013 and the court couldn't have framed charges before disposing of the application.
Case Title: Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. , with connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 175
The Bombay High Court recently allowed a plea by Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (IHFL) seeking to quash a FIR lodged by a shareholder against the company and its promoters, alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust. The Court also quashed a Magistrate Court's order, directing registration of FIR.
The bench was of the view that the Magistrate was influenced by the length of the complaint, and arrived at a conclusion that there was a diversion of huge monetary funds to the tune of Rs. 300 crores and the money was transferred to other country i.e., Mauritius.
"Admittedly, it was only allegations in the complaint and except bare words of the complainant there was no other material before the Magistrate to form such an opinion as such, there is merit in the submissions of learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rohatgi that the Magistrate without applying his mind passed mechanical order under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure."
Case Title: Alnesh Akil Somji Versus The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 176
The Bombay High Court has clarified that an investigating agency cannot thwart the right to default bail of an accused by merely invoking graver charges.
It opined that the Court, while considering the plea for default bail, would be required to look into the generality of the allegations made and the material collected. In a given case where ex-facie the provision is not attracted, the Court may not be bound by the same.
Case Title: Govind Ramling Solpure and Ors. versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 177
The Bombay High Court has read down Rule 44(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961 which imposed additional conditions on the person seeking registration of sale deeds for lands of certain size and therefore produce a No Objection Certificate for fragmentation of the land from the competent authority.
A circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps (IGRCS), on July 12, 2021 based on Rule 44(1)(i), mandated enclosure of permission from the concerned authority in view of section 8B of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holding (Amendment) Act, 2015. The circular barred Sub-Registrar's from registering any sale/transfer deed, if the no objection from the competent authority was not produced.
Case Title -Omkar Mahadeo Supekar vs MCGM
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 178
In a huge setback for the civic body, the Bombay High Court held that the ongoing work for the cycle and jogging track around the Powai-lake is illegal and directed restoration of the reclaimed land.
The court held that the cycle track was a breach of Development Control Regulation 2034, [34 3.3 clause 7] mandating no construction for 100 meters from the periphery of the lake.
Case Title: Armstrong Pure Water Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India and others
Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 179
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice N.R.Borkar and Justice K.R.Shriram held that the a litigant should have been proactive and promptly communicated the stay granted by the Court to the Assessing Officer.
Case Title: Amol Kashinath Vyavhare Versus Purnima Chaugule Shrirangi And Others
Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 180
Publishing news reports about friction between police officers from different departments doesn't amount to creating ill-will among classes as defined under section 505(2) of the IPC, the Bombay High Court has held.
The bench noted that ingredients of 505(2) of the IPC are that the publication of the article must be with the "intent to create or promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever."