Nominal Index [Citation 451 – 461]

1. M/s. Sanathan Textile Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 451

2. Faizan Wahid Baig v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 452

3. Vijay S/o Shankarrao Talewar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 453

4. Sheikhah Fadiah Saad Al-Abdullah Al-Sabah v. Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 454

5. Julio Ribeiro and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 455

6. Prasanna Krishnaji Musale v. Mrs. Neelam Prasanna Musale 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 456

7. M/s. Renaissance Global Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 457

8. Anjali Vilas Deshpande v. Prabha Rajendra Gupta 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 458

9. Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 459

10. Aboil alias Yugandhara w/o Tejpal Patil v. Tejpal S/o Premchand Patil 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 460

11. Geeta Lunch Home v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 461

Reports/Judgments

1. Notification Granting IGST Exemption To Capital Goods Imported Under EPCG scheme Is Clarificatory, Curative: Bombay High Court

Case title: M/s. Sanathan Textile Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 451

The Bombay High Court held that notification no. 79/2017-Customs dated October 13, 2017, amending notification no. 16/2015-Customs and granting exemption from the IGST to the capital goods imported under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG Scheme) is clarifying and curative.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Sriram and Justice Arif S. Doctor directed the department to refund in cash the IGST paid on imports of capital goods made during the period 01.07.2017 to 12.10.2017.

The court noted that the basic structure of GST was not to grant exemptions, but the GST Council decided to grant exemption from IGST, Cess, etc. under Section 6 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, to imports of goods for exporters availing the scheme of advance authorisation/export promotion capital goods or 100% export-oriented units up to March 31, 2018 and to continue the existing monitoring scheme for exports.

2. Though Minor, She Understood Consequences Of Her Act & Voluntarily Accompanied Him: Bombay High Court While Granting Bail To POCSO Accused

Case Title: Faizan Wahid Baig v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 452

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl observing that the two were in a relationship and the girl, though minor, understood the consequences of her act. The girl was 15 years and 4 months old while the accused was about 21 years old at the time of the alleged incident.

"n a case like this, where she voluntarily joined the company of the applicant, and she had categorically admitted that she was in love with the applicant, whether that she consented for the sexual intercourse or not, is the matter of evidence," Justice Bharati Dangre stated in her order.

3. Remove Collars Of Unregistered Stray Dogs: Bombay High Court Directs Nagpur Civic Body, Seeks Compliance Report (livelaw.in)

Case Title: Vijay S/o Shankarrao Talewar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 453

The Bombay High Court directed the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to check whether any stray dogs in the city have been collared without proper registration and to remove any such unauthorised collars.

A division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani of the Nagpur bench gave this direction in a PIL filed by activist Vijay Talewar through advocate Firdos Mirza seeking action with regard to the presence of stray dogs in Nagpur city.

The court also asked all the intervenors in the case to submit suggestions regarding the manner "in which the nuisance of stray dogs must be controlled."

The court directed the NMC to consider the guidelines prescribed in the revised module for stray dogs management, rabies eradication, reducing man-dog conflict, devised by the Animal Welfare Board of India and consult the Board for the purpose of "elimination" of "nuisance" of stray dogs and taking care of welfare of the dogs.

4. Prima Facie Tenancy Not Forged: Bombay High Court Refuses To Appoint Court Receiver For Prime Mumbai Property In Dispute With Kuwaiti Royalty

Case Title: Sheikhah Fadiah Saad Al-Abdullah Al-Sabah v. Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 454

The Bombay High Court reiterated that unlike criminal proceedings, in civil proceedings, a court can rely on statements given to the police under section 162 of CrPC. Therefore, it relied on witness statements made before CID in a criminal investigation to decide a property dispute involving the royal family of Kuwait.

Justice BP Colabawala, while dealing with a notice of motion in the civil suit, extended the interim relief granted to the eldest daughter of late Sheikh Saad, former Emir of Kuwait and restrained the defendants from creating any third-party rights in the disputed premises in a building owned by the royal family.

The court however, refused to appoint a court receiver and grant mesne profits to the petitioner holding that the petitioner couldn't make out a prima facie case that the defendants forged and fabricated the tenancy agreements with respect to the suit premises.

5. What Steps Were Taken To Prevent Maharashtra Bandh Over Lakhimpur Kheri Incident In 2021: Bombay High Court To Police

Case Title: Julio Ribeiro and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 455

The Bombay High Court asked Maharashtra Police to inform it about the measures that were taken to avert the bandh, which had been called by the then ruling Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) in October 2021 to protest against the death of farmers in Uttar Pradesh's Lakhimpur Kheri. The state-wide strike was supported by NCP's alliance partners Shiv Sena and Congress.

The court admitted the PIL filed by four senior citizens, including former Mumbai CP Julio Ribeiro last year seeking penalty on the political parties and compensation for those affected.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja sought to know if the police had complied with directions passed in a 2004 judgement in DG Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra delivered by Justice AP Shah.

6. Bombay High Court Refuses To Grant Divorce To Artist Who Falsely Accused Wife Of Being HIV Positive

Case Title: Prasanna Krishnaji Musale v. Mrs. Neelam Prasanna Musale

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 456

Observing that a man couldn't claim irretrievable breakdown of his marriage after falsely accusing his wife being an "HIV patient" and refusing to co-habit with her, the Bombay High Court refused to grant the man divorce.

A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sharmila Deshmukh dismissed an artist's appeal from 2011 against a Family Court order refusing divorce under Section 13 (1)(i-a) (i-b) and (v) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

"Petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. In spite of the report… which shows the test result as HIV DNA "not detected", the Petitioner has refused to co-habit with the Respondent and defamed the Respondent (wife) in the society by informing relatives and friends that the Respondent (wife) has tested positive."

7. Import Of New/Unused Jewellery For Remaking After Melting In An SEZ, Is Permissible; Bombay High Court Sets Aside Levy Of Customs Duty

Case Title: M/s. Renaissance Global Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 457

The Bombay High Court has ruled that import of finished jewellery for the purpose of melting and remaking of fresh pieces of jewellery in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), is an authorised operation. Therefore, the Court held that there is no prohibition on import of finished jewellery for remaking, without payment of Customs Duty, in terms of Rule 27(1) of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 (SEZ Rules).

In a batch of writ petitions challenging the levy of Customs Duty along with interest and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, the bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and A.S. Doctor were dealing with the issue as to whether the petitioners were permitted to import new/unused jewellery for remaking after melting.

8. [MV Act] 'Form 16' Issued By Employer Reliable Piece Of Evidence To Determine Real Income Of Deceased For Compensation: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Anjali Vilas Deshpande v. Prabha Rajendra Gupta

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 458

The Bombay High Court held that Form 16 issued by an employer for income tax purposes, showing a higher remuneration than a salary slip, is a reliable piece of evidence for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act,.

"We find that Form 16 is a reliable piece of evidence to determine the real income of the deceased. The reason is that Form 16 has been signed and generated by the employer of the deceased," a division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Gauri Godse observed.

9. Bombay High Court Allows Nuvoco Vistas To File GST TRAN-1 For Availing Transitional ISD Credit

Case Title: Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 459

The Bombay High Court allowed Nuvoco Vistas, to file GST TRAN-1 to avail of the transitional Input Service Distributor (ISD) credit of service tax.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor observed that the GST TRAN-1 or revised GST TRAN-1 filed by the units or offices will be based on the manual ISD invoices to be issued by the petitioner's ISD, subject to aggregate credit not exceeding the ISD credit available to the petitioner.

The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India & Another v. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. The Apex Court had directed the GST Network to open the common portal to file/rectify TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for a period of two months, i.e., with effect from 1st September 2022 to 31st October 2022 to enable the different private parties to avail Transitional Credit.

10. [S.24 Hindu Marriage Act] Posting Job Offer Letter On Social Media Insufficient Proof Of Wife's Employment: Bombay HC

Case Title: Aboil alias Yugandhara w/o Tejpal Patil v. Tejpal S/o Premchand Patil

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 460

The Bombay High Court granted interim maintenance to a woman in a matrimonial matter, observing that mere social media post about a job offer does not mean that she was actually employed.

While dealing with a writ petition, Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Aurangabad bench set aside family court's order denying maintenance pendente lite to the petitioner-wife. High Court said that the respondent-husband didn't give actual proof that his wife was employed.

The court further reiterated that if the wife does not have a job, mere possession of having higher educational qualification cannot be a reason to altogether deny interim maintenance

11. Mere Filing Of FIR Against Restaurant Owner Not Ground To Cancel Its Performance License, Unless Case Results In Conviction: Bombay HC

Case Title: Geeta Lunch Home v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 461

Observing that mere registration of a criminal case cannot be a ground to cancel performance license of a restaurant unless the case results in a conviction, the Bombay High Court recently set aside the cancellation of performance licence of Geeta Lunch Home, a restaurant in Mumbai.

"It is settled law that until held guilty, a person should be treated as innocent, and therefore, mere registration of crime would not furnish ground to cancel license", Justice Sandeep K. Shinde held.

Other Developments

1. NHAI Not Taking NH-66 Potholes Issue Seriously: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Owais Anwar Pechkar v. Union of India and Ors.

The Bombay High Court pulled up National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for not taking seriously the issue of bad condition of a section of the National Highway 66.

The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja directed NHAI to fill all potholes on the Panvel to Indapur stretch of the Mumbai-Goa part of NH66 and file a compliance affidavit by December 23, 2022.

2. Bombay HC CJ Dipankar Datta Recuses From Hearing PIL For CBI/ ED Probe Into Ex-Maha CM Uddhav Thackeray's Wealth

Case Title: Gouri Abhay Bhide and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay High Court Chief Justice Dipankar Datta recused from hearing a PIL seeking a CBI and ED investigation into the alleged "disproportionate" wealth of Maharashtra's ex-CM Uddhav Thackeray, his wife and two sons.

Not before the bench of which Chief Justice Dipankar Datta is a member, the CJ said.

3. 'Open Manholes Are Death Traps': Bombay High Court On 68-year-Old's Recent Death At Virar

Case Title: Ruju R. Thakker v. State of Maharashta and Ors.

The Bombay High Court said that all open manholes adjoining the Eastern Express Highway must be covered by December 1, while calling them a "death trap" after a 68-year-old woman fell into one such manhole and lost her life.

The petitioner pointed out that on the EEH, especially from Mulund to Ghatkopar, there are innumerable open manholes on the road connecting the service road and main highway.

The court also warned the BMC against seeking any extensions to comply with an earlier order regarding repairing of the 20 worst pothole ridden roads. The BMC had earlier given the court a timeline regarding concretization of Mumbai roads.

4. Bombay High Court Questions Maharashtra Govt's Reservation For Orphans In Public Employment (livelaw.in)

Case Title: Amruta Karwande and Anr. v. Union of India

The Bombay High Court questioned a Maharashtra government resolution which provides reservation for orphan children in employment.

"As far as reservation in educational institutions is concerned, okay. But how can a child be granted reservation in employment?" Chief Justice Dipankar Datta asked.

The division bench of Justice Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja was hearing a PIL challenging the GR dated August 23, 2021 which provides reservation to orphan children in education and employment.

However, the court took exception to the provision of reservation in employment for orphans and pointed out that the GR is specifically for 'orphan children'. "How can children under 18 years of age be employed?" the court asked.