Bombay High Court
Tata Steel Entitled To Treat Contribution Of Rs. 212.52 Crores To CAF As Revenue Expenditure: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that Tata Steel is entitled to treat the contribution of Rs. 212.52 crores to the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) as revenue expenditure.The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale has relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dr. Prafulla R. Hede, and another has accepted...
[Children Drown In Open Water Tank] Rs. 10 Lakhs Compensation Approved For Parents: BMC Tells Bombay High Court
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on Tuesday informed the Bombay High Court that ad-hoc compensation of Rs 10 lakhs as a special case will be given to the parents of two minor boys who drowned in an open water tank at a civic garden in Mumbai's Wadala.Senior Advocate Anil Singh for BMC submitted that the concerned contractor will pay the compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs per victim to...
FIRs For Alleged Hate Speech Registered Against BJP MLAs Nitesh Rane And Geeta Jain: Maharashtra Police To Bombay High Court
The Maharashtra Police on Tuesday informed the Bombay High Court that criminal cases have been registered against BJP MLA Nitesh Rane for alleged hate speeches in Malwani, Mankhurd, Ghatkopar. FIR is also registered against MLA Gita Jain for alleged hate speech in Mira Bhayander from January to March this year.The FIRs have been registered under sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups...
Breaking | Bombay High Court Dismisses Suit Challenging Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin's Position As 53rd Spiritual Leader Of Dawoodi Bohra Community
After a ten-year long legal battle, the Bombay High Court has upheld Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin's position as “Dai-al-Mutlaq” or the religious leader of the Dawoodi Bohra community, dismissing his nephew Taher Fakhruddin's claim.Justice GS Patel pronounced the judgment today, dismissing Fakhruddin's suit.The trial in the Syedna succession row concluded and judgment was reserved in April...
Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 15 - April 21, 2024
Nominal Index [Citation 200 - 220]Sumit Suresh More v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 200Arun Gulab Gawli v. State of Maharashtra 201Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v. ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 202Dipak P. Mali v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 203Durgadas s/o. Sunil Saindane v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 204Ramesh Sippy v. Sunhil Ajit Sippy & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw...
Bombay High Court Strikes Down State's Circular Imposing Additional Conditions For Registration Of Govt Employee Vehicles Under “BH Series”
The Bombay High Court recently quashed the State government's circular providing additional conditions for registration of vehicles belonging to government employees under the “BH series”.A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla allowed a writ petition filed by Civil Judge Mahendra Bansilal Patil challenging the Commissioner of Transport's refusal to...
Arbitrator's Mandate Would Not Be Terminated When The Delays In Arbitral Proceedings Are Not Attributable To It: Bombay High Court
The High Court of Bombay has held that an arbitrator's mandate would not terminate when the proceedings are not completed within timelines agreed by the parties, if the delays in the conduct of the proceedings are attributable to the party seeking termination of the mandate. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that generally, in an arbitration not governed by Section 29A,...
Power Of General Manager Of Employer To Confirm Nomination Of Arbitrator By The Contractor Runs Contrary To Principles Of Impartiality And Independence: Bombay High Court
The High Court of Bombay has held that the power of General Manager of the employer to confirm nomination of arbitrator by the Contractor runs contrary to principles of impartiality and independence. It held that nomination by a party of its arbitrator cannot be subject to approval by the other party. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that for an appointment of arbitrator from...
Bombay High Court Quashes Case Against Raj Thackeray For Abetting Violence And Public Property Damage In 2008
The Bombay High Court on Thursday quashed a criminal case against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray for alleged abetment of violence and public property damage arising out of a stone pelting incident in 2008.Justice Nitin B Suryawanshi of the Aurangabad bench set aside lower court orders refusing to discharge Thackeray in a case involving MNS supporters allegedly attacking...
Appointment Of Arbitrators From A Narrow Panel Of 4 Arbitrators Is Violative Of Section 12(5) Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court
The High Court of Bombay has held that appointment of arbitrator from a narrow panel of 4 arbitrators is violative of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. It held that such practice of preparing narrow panels restricts free choice and give rise to suspicion that favourites are chosen. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that independence and impartiality of arbitrators is a hallmark...
Director General Of Shipping's 2022 Order For Certification Of Accommodation Barges Not Applicable To Ships Registered Under Coastal Vessels Act: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court held recently that the 2022 order of the Director General of Shipping for certification of accommodation barges does not apply to vessels which are not Indian ships registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, of 1858.A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla temporarily stayed orders of the Directorate General of Shipping to detain three of...
Although Adultery Is Grounds For Divorce, It Can't Be A Ground To Deny Child's Custody: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court held on Friday that adultery is a ground for divorce but cannot be a ground for denying custody of a child.Justice Rajesh Patil dismissed a writ petition filed by son of a former legislator seeking custody of his nine-year-old daughter from his estranged wife on grounds of adultery.“Adultery is in any case a ground for divorce, however the same can't be a ground for...