NOMINAL INDEX Pankaj s/o Roshan Dhawan vs National e-Assessment Centre Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik vs The Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. Rachna Sanjay Kuwar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs ITO Vishnu Rajaram Thakar Vs. State of Maharashtra,Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Anr. P vs A...
NOMINAL INDEX
Pankaj s/o Roshan Dhawan vs National e-Assessment Centre
Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik vs The Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.
Rachna Sanjay Kuwar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs ITO
Vishnu Rajaram Thakar Vs. State of Maharashtra,Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Anr.
P vs A & Ors
Sankalp Resorts Limited & ors vs State of Maharashtra and ors
World Sport Group (India) Private Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in India
Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors
Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
ROUND-UP
1. Reply Of The Taxpayer Not Considered: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Faceless Assessment
Case Title: Pankaj s/o Roshan Dhawan Versus National e-Assessment Centre
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 81
Case No.: WP 1927/2021
The Bombay High Court bench quashed an income tax faceless assessment as the taxpayer's reply was not considered by the department/respondent.
The IT department has launched the Faceless Facility for income tax appeals. Under the facility, all the cases will be completed in a faceless way in a faceless environment, except for appeals that are related to evasion of tax, serious fraud, black money, international tax, and special research.
Case Title: Mohammad Nawab Mohammad Islam Malik @ Nawab Malik vs The Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 82
Case No: WP 648/ 2022
In its order refusing interim release of Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik, the Bombay High Court observed that prima facie claiming that a property is untainted would amount to an offence under section 3 of the PMLA 2002.
The court denied Malik interim release in his habeas corpus plea challenging PMLA proceedings. The crux of Nawab Malik's counsel's arguments was on the retrospective applicability of PMLA since ED had used the amended provision of section 3 of PMLA from 2013 and an explanation is inserted in the year 2019, for the transaction of the year 2003 and 2005.
However, the bench observed that a perusal of the unamended provisions of Section 3 mention "process or activity connected with proceeds of crime" as one of the ingredients. It's a wider term and its constitutional validity is not challenged. "What we prima facie feel that projection/claiming a property as untainted property is the objectionable act forming part of an offence under Section 3 of the Act of 2002."
Case Title: Rachna Sanjay Kuwar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 83
The Bombay HC held that a medical aspirant domiciled in Maharashtra, but having passed 10th or 12th standard from outside the state shall not be eligible to avail the benefit under State quota for the purpose of NEET-UF examination.
"The Rule applicable since 2018 and followed consistently is that (i) the student should pass 10th and 12th standard from an institution situated within the State of Maharashtra and (ii) must be domicile of State of Maharashtra. Exception is if he has cleared 10th standard prior to the year 2017 from an institution outside the State of Maharashtra, he would still be eligible, provided he has passed 12th standard examination from an institution situated within the State of Maharashtra and he is also domicile of the Maharashtra," the Court said.
Case Title: Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs ITO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 84
Case No.: WP 3597/ 2019
The Bombay High Court bench upheld the validity of the reassessment notice issued within 5 hours of receiving information against Maharashtra Minister, Chhagan Chandrakant.
The court observed that the power vested in the commissioner under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act to grant or not to grant approval to the Assessing Officer to re-open an assessment is coupled with duty, and the commissioner is duty bound to apply his mind to the proposal put up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Such power cannot be exercised casually, in a routine and perfunctory manner.
Case Title: Vishnu Rajaram Thakar Vs. State of Maharashtra,Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 85
Holding that a Caste Scrutiny Committee can review its own decision only in exceptional cases when there is any playing of fraud or suppression of material facts or misrepresentation of facts, the Bombay High Court set aside a show cause notice by the Committee seeking to review it earlier orders.
A division bench said that a quasi-judicial authority did not have statutory power to review its own decision, but judicial pronouncements, while giving the power to the Committee to review its orders in exceptional cases in the past had held, "The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants.
Case Title: Forum Against Oppression of Women in P vs A & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 86
Case No: Suit 142/ 2021
Over five months after the Bombay High Court issued certain guidelines, including barring media reporting and uploading of judgements in POSH cases, to maintain anonymity of parties, the bench clarified that its directions were 'case specific' not applicable to all matters under the Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act 2013 and Rules.
As per the September 24 directions, disclosing identity of the victim, accused or witness in a POSH case is prohibited, all such court hearing must be in-camera in the judge's chamber. Moreover, none of the parties were permitted to disclose anything about the case, including its final outcome; judgements not to be uploaded on the website and no media reporting without prior permission of the court.
"The directions had to be confined to this particular case," Justice Patel said in the latest order.
Case Title: Sankalp Resorts Limited & ors vs State of Maharashtra and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 87
Once the Collector (even in a draft speaking order) opines that a privately owned land parcel is not a "private forest," the Central Government's permission under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is unnecessary to exploit the land for development, the Bombay High Court held.
A division bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav observed that the Central Act would apply only when a forest land is to be used for non-forest purposes, like when a project is to be set up on the forest land, and particulars of the proposed project are to be set out.
Case Title :World Sport Group (India) Private Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 88
Observing that the arbitral award of three former Supreme Court judges by 2:1 majority missed out on "huge chunks of important evidence or not even referred to it," the Bombay High Court set aside the award in favour of the Board of Control for Cricket (BCCI) in India. The court passed the order on a challenge to the award by World Sport Group (India) Private Ltd.
Justice BP Colabawalla, while setting aside the July 2020 award, also observed that while challenge to an arbitral award was not equivalent to an appeal, one of the grounds to challenge a domestic arbitral award, even after the amendment of the Act in 2015, was that it suffered from a patent illegality.
"The Supreme Court has clearly held that a decision of the Tribunal which is perverse, while no longer being a ground of challenge under the "public policy of India", would certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of the Award. The Supreme Court has inter alia held that a finding in the Award based on no evidence or an Award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision, would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality," Justice Colabawalla observed in his March 16, 2022 judgement.
9. Son Can't Claim Right Or Share In Parents' Flats While They Are Alive : Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 89
A son doesn't have any right, title or settled and enforceable share in his parent's flats till they are alive, the Bombay High Court has observed.
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar rejected the son's suggestion that he has a settled and enforceable share in either of the flats in the lifetime of the real owners, his parents, as being "laughable." "The fact that he is their son does not make either of their flats 'a shared household", the bench said.
10. Bombay High Court Rejects Plea To Stay OTT Release of Movie 83 On Hotstar & Netflix
Case Title: Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs Reliance Entertainment Studios Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 90
Observing that prima facie - Netflix Global LLC and Star India have antecedent (prior) rights to exploit the film '83' on satellite and digital media for 10 years, the Bombay High Court refused ad-interim relief to Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt Ltd to stall the film's OTT release.
Mad Man was assigned 37.5% ownership in '83' as part on certain consent terms in 2021. However, the OTT platforms were assigned rights in 2017 and 2019, the HC noted. The HC reiterated the Supreme Court's observation in Chitraleka Builders and Anr. that "Consent Terms does not bind parties, who are not parties to the Consent Terms."
"They cannot be bound by any of the clause in the Consent Minutes of Order as contended by the Plaintiff… In fact, in my prima facie view, the Consent Minutes of Order will amount to an estoppel insofar as the Plaintiff is concerned who is a party to the Consent Minutes of Order as well as Consent Arbitral Award and by virtue of which the Plaintiff cannot challenge the assignment and licence agreements entered into in respect of the subject film with Defendant No. 4 and Defendant No. 5 respectively."