Nominal Index [Citations 501-517]

1. Bharatiya Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Krishna Harinarayan Bajaj, 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 501

2. Delfina Gonsalves v. Felix Gonsalves 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 502

3. C.H. Sharma and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 503

4. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Vardhan Builders: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 504

5. M/s. Pinak Bharat and Company v. Anil Ramrao Naik 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 505

6. Suraj s/o Arvind Thakare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 506

7. Sanjaykumar Shivmangal Bharati v. State of Maharashtra & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 507

8. Sanjeev Suryakant Palande v. Union of India and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 508

9. Deena Pramod Baldota v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 509

10. Anushka Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 510

11. Manzar Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Moving Frames & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 511

12. M/s Bhatewara Associates v. Union Of India: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 512

13. Rohan Tukaram @ Appasaheb Kale v. Somnath Haribhau Koli and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 513

14. Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 514

15. Hyprecision Hydraulik v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 515

16. Vikram S/o Madhukar Labhe and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 516

17. Jyoti w/o Mahesh Agrawal v. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Central Railway 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 517

1. Bombay High Court Allows Flat Owner To Recover Over 46 Lakhs Terrace Repair Expenses From Housing Society

Case Title: Bharatiya Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Krishna Harinarayan Bajaj,

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 501

The Bombay High Court allowed a flat owner to recover over Rs. 46 lakhs from a cooperative housing society as expenses for repairing the building terrace which the society had neglected since 1992.

Justice Sandeep K. Shinde also imposed cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on the society payable to the flat owner who suffered due to leakage from the overhead terrace despite multiple complaints to the society.

2. [Portuguese CPC] Bombay HC Directs Cancellation Of Goan Couple's Marriage Registration Based On Foreign Decree

Case Title: Delfina Gonsalves v. Felix Gonsalves

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 502

The Bombay High Court at Goa relied on a divorce decree passed by the Family Court sitting at the Court and Tribunal Service Centre in England to cancel the marriage registration of a Goan couple.

Justice G. S. Kulkarni noted that the grounds on which the decree was passed in England are also grounds recognised and acceptable under the laws in India, including under the PCCP.

The court allowed their petition under Article 1101 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, 1939 and directed cancellation of their names in the marriage registration book of 2004.

3. 'Need To Give Financial Autonomy To Govt Hospitals': Bombay High Court On Non- Availability of Essential Medicines & Equipment

Case title: C.H. Sharma and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 503

Bombay High Court at Nagpur observed that several Departments of the Government enjoy reasonable financial autonomy and are allowed to utilise their financial powers fully by purchasing the essentials that they require for their official needs but the same kind of financial autonomy is not reserved for the Government Hospitals and the Government Hospitals are compelled to make purchases of their medicines and medical equipment through Huffkin Institute.

The court urged the Maharashtra Government to decentralize purchase of medicines and medical equipment by Government Hospitals giving them reasonable financial autonomy to serve the interest of patients.

4. Bombay High Court Allows Deduction On Issuance Of Completion Certificate

Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Vardhan Builders

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 504

The Bombay High Court allowed the income tax deduction under Section 80-IB on the grounds that a completion certificate was issued by the competent authority.

The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki S.A. Menezes, while upholding the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), observed that there was no allegation by the survey team during the earlier survey conducted in the year 2006 that the assessee was not raising the construction as per the approved plan. It was also held that if there was any modification to a completed residential unit for which a completion certificate had been issued by the competent authority, the assessee could not be held responsible.

5. [NI Act] Complainant Putting Date On Cheque Without Drawer's Consent Renders Instrument Void: Bombay High Court

Case title: M/s. Pinak Bharat and Company v. Anil Ramrao Naik

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 505

The Bombay High Court held that subsequently adding dates for payment without the payer's consent renders the negotiable instrument void, while refusing relief in a cheque bouncing case.

"No doubt cheque is negotiable instrument which is transferable and negotiable, presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act can be drawn only when the pre-conditions are satisfied. The complainant unilaterally has put in dates on the cheques without the authority of the accused and even by not informing him. So, it amounts to material alterations. If it is so such negotiable instrument becomes void", Justice S. M. Modak held in his judgment.

6. Social Media Important Pillar Of Democracy As Long As It Is Not Misused: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Suraj s/o Arvind Thakare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 506

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court cautioned against the misuse of social media, while acknowledging that it has become a powerful medium for exchange of views.

"One has to be careful when one expresses one's view or makes comments that the words used are not obscene or indignified or demeaning. In other words, a balance has to be struck between the need for healthy use of social media and the need for preventing misuse of social media", a division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani observed.

The court said that India's democracy has progressed so much and tolerance to fair criticism, dissent, and satirical comments has become its hallmark. Commenting on the role of social media in democracy, the court said that it is only a pillar to democracy till it is not misused by posting content which constitutes an offence or falls under reasonable restrictions on free speech.

7. Vagal Inhibition Death: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Culpable Homicide Conviction, Says Accused Couldn't Have Known Their Act Would Cause Death

Case Title: Sanjaykumar Shivmangal Bharati v. State of Maharashtra & Anr with connected case

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 507

The Bombay High Court recently set aside the conviction of three persons convicted for culpable homicide of a chicken shop owner, observing that the cause of his death was unusual and they could not have known their assault would result in his death.

Justice Sarang V. Kotwal convicted the three appellants for voluntarily causing grievous hurt instead. The court said that the act of pressing the victim's neck and giving blows on the chest showed that the appellants had the intention to cause injuries which could endanger the victim's life.

8. Prima Facie Offence Of Money Laundering Not Made Out: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Anil Deshmukh's Former Secretary Sanjeev Palande

Case Title: SanjeevPalande v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 508

The Bombay High Court observed the stringent conditions for bail under section 45 of PMLA have to be considered reasonably. A finding that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit an offence if released on bail, are required only to assess the entitlement of bail, the court said.

Justice NJ Jamadar granted bail to Sanjeev Palande, personal secretary and co-accused of former state home minister & NCP leader Anil Deshmukh in the money laundering case being investigated by ED.

9. No Bonafide Intention To Redevelop Slum Area On Her Own: Bombay High Court Upholds Acquisition Of Woman's Property For Slum Rehabilitation

Case Title: Deena Pramod Baldota v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 509

The Bombay High Court refused to set aside acquisition of a 5115.2 m² property in Borivali for slum rehabilitation observing that the owner showed no bonafide intention to redevelop the area on her own and the acquisition cannot be set aside disregarding her conduct.

"It is not a position in law that irrespective of the conduct of the owner, irrespective of lack of bonafide, irrespective of neglect by owner and incapacity even after giving an opportunity to submit the scheme, the acquisition will be set aside", the court held.

Therefore, the division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh dismissed the property owner's writ petition challenging acquisition of her property.

10. Bombay High Court Frowns At Actor Anushka Sharma For Filing Tax Petition Through Her Tax Consultant

Case Title: Anushka Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 510

The Bombay High Court frowned at actor Anushka Sharma for filing a tax petition through her consultant instead of doing it herself.

"These Petitions are filed through Taxation Consultant of the Petitioner. There is no reason shown as to why the Petitioner cannot file these Petitions on solemn affirmation," a division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Gauri Godse said in the order.

The petitioner's lawyer Advocates Deepak Bapat and Sonali Bapat subsequently agreed to withdraw the petition and file a fresh one.

11. Bombay High Court restrains production of Kallapart, a Tamil Remake of Spanish Film Al Final De Tunel

Case Title: Manzar Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Moving Frames & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 511

The Bombay High Court temporarily restrained the production of 'Kallapart', a Tamil remake of a Spanish film observing that the remake license agreement was suspicious as it referred to the global pandemic despite allegedly having been executed in 2018.

12. Technical Consideration Cannot Come In The Way Of Substantial Justice: Bombay High Condones ITR-filing Delay

Case Title: M/s Bhatewara Associates v. Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 512

The Bombay High Court condoned a year-long delay in filing the Income Tax Return (ITR) over "genuine hardships." The division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Abhay Ahuja observed that technical considerations cannot come in the way of substantial justice. It is neither an allegation of malafide nor an allegation that the delay has been deliberate against the assessee, the court noted.

13. Bombay High Court Raps Maharashtra Police For Misusing Official Secrets Act, Says Police Stations Not 'Prohibited Place' For Videography

Case Title: Rohan Tukaram @ Appasaheb Kale v. Somnath Haribhau Koli and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 513

The Bombay High Court pulled up the police for registering FIRs under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act against those video graphing "discussions" or taking photographs inside police stations and directed the authorities to take appropriate steps to ensure the law is not misused.

The division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan said it would be open for the Director General of Police, Commissioner of Mumbai Police and Home Department to consider whether a senior high ranking level officer be informed when an FIR under the Official Secrets Act is lodged, in matters concerning the Police Station, to curb misuse of the Act.

The bench added that invocation of section 3 of the Act can have drastic consequences on the person against whom it is invoked.

14. 'Arrest Memo Has No Particulars Of Offence': Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Smuggling iPhones Worth 500 Crore

Case Title: Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 514

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man arrested by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for allegedly smuggling iPhones into India as the arrest memo did not contain any particulars of the case.

Alleged prior transgressions of the accused cannot justify DRI's non-compliance with the constitutional and statutory obligations, Justice R. N. Laddha said.

15. Failure To Furnish Certified Octroi Exemption Form; Importer Not Ineligible For Refund Of Octroi Under Section 194(2) Of MMC Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Hyprecision Hydraulik v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 515

The Bombay High Court ruled that failure to furnish a declaration duly certified by the Octroi Inspector, would not render the importer ineligible for refund of Octroi Duty under Section 194(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act).

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Arif S. Doctor held that production of a duly certified octroi exemption form is not a substantive requirement but merely a procedural requirement to enable an eligible party to claim refund of Octroi under Section 194(2), on imports made in pursuance of a specified contract executed with the Government.

16. 'No Investigating Officer Can Flout Procedural Requirements, Proclaim To Be Law Unto Himself': Bombay High Court Slams Cop For House Seizure

Case Title: Vikram S/o Madhukar Labhe and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 516

Bombay High Court severely reprimanded a police officer for seizing a man's house under section 102 of the Cr.P.C. despite seizure of immovable property not being allowed under the said provision.

The division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani of Nagpur said, "In the name of taking action against criminals, outlaws and offenders in serious crimes, no Investigating Officer can flout the procedural requirements, can breach the limits of law, can openly disrespect the law declared by the highest Court of the land and thus, proclaim himself to be the law unto himself".

The court said that IO's request to make changes in the record of a registrar is an interference with the functioning of the Sub Registrar. The intimation letter dated December 12, 2022 amounts to usurpation of power of Civil Court and also misuse of powers by the IO.

17. Casual Absence Of Defendant On Insignificant Date Would Not Make Court Order 'Ex-Parte': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Jyoti w/o Mahesh Agrawal v. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Central Railway

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 517

The Bombay High Court held that the consequence of the absence of a defendant has to be considered and a casual absence on any intermediate date would not make the decision of the court 'ex-parte'.

Justice Vinay Joshi of the Nagpur bench added that voluntarily not cross examining the party and not advancing argument does not mean the order was ex-parte.

Other Developments

1. Bombay High Court Orders Status Quo On CM Eknath Shinde's 'Decision' To Give Land Acquired For Slum Dwellers To Private Persons

Case Title: Anil s/o Murlidhar Wadpalliwar v. State of Maharashtra and others

The Bombay High Court questioned Chief Minister Eknath Shinde's alleged decision to direct the Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) to give away over 4.5 acres of land meant for slum dwellers to 16 private individuals despite the matter being sub-judice. Shinde had reportedly taken the decision last year when he was the Urban Development Minister.

A division bench at Nagpur of Justices Sunil Shukre and MW Chandwani directed the State to file its response on the assertions made in the news report.

2. Bombay High Court Extends Stay On Order Granting Bail To Anil Deshmukh

Case Title: Anil Deshmukh v. CBI.

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday extended the date from which the order granting bail to Anil Deshmukh, former state home minister, would be effective in the CBI case.

Justice MS Karnik said his order would be effective after Tuesday.

"The order now will be effective after Tuesday 27th December. It is made clear that no further request under any circumstances will be entertained," the court said.

3. PIL Challenges 'Clean Chit' to Aryan Khan In Drugs Case, Bombay High Court Says 'Publicity Litigation'

Case title – Deepak Vithal Adhav & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors

A criminal PIL challenging the "clean chit" to actor Shah Rukh Khan's son Aryan Khan in the cruise ship drugs case was withdrawn from the Bombay High Court on Wednesday.

Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala called it a "publicity litigation" and asked the petitioner to explain how the issue concerned him and how was it in public interest. It warned that heavy costs would be imposed.

Subsequently, Advocate Subodh Pathak for the petitioner law student - Pritam Desai - withdrew the petition.

4. Take Deterrent Action Against Doctors Refusing to Show Up In Tribal Belt of Maharashtra: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Monday expressed the urgent need for deterrent action against doctors failing to take up postings in malnutrition-ridden tribal areas.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar took exception to the State's submission that they can't take action against doctors who refuse to join even as intervenor pointed out there had been nearly 10,000 deaths in the State's tribal belt in the last one year.

5. Bombay High Court Refuses To Immediately Restrain Individuals From Posting on Social Media in SII Covishield Defamation Suit

Case Title – Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Yohan Tengra and Ors.

The Bombay High Court refused immediate relief to restrain certain individuals in a 100-crore defamation suit by Covishield vaccine manufacturer Serum Institute of India and its CEO Adar Poonawalla.

The court said that the matter was bulky, and it did not have time to hear it at length for interim reliefs and refused to pass a restraining order till then. Justice N. J. Jamadar however, granted SII liberty to approach the vacation court for the same relief.

6. Bombay High Court Pulls Up Maharashtra Govt Over Insufficient Number Of Family Courts

Case Title – Tushar Gupta v. State of Maharashtra

The Bombay High Court pulled up the state government for "whiling away time" and not taking steps to set up sufficient family courts in the state.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Santosh Chapalgaonkar said "When steps are not to be taken, the correspondences are engaged into. This is to while away time."

The court made this remark after government pleader PP Kakade informed that there are several correspondences between various government departments and high court to set up more family courts in the state.

7. No Progress By Mental Health Authority In Five Years, State Counsel Handicapped Without Instructions: Bombay High Court Summons Secretary Health

Livid over the Maharashtra Mental Health Authority's non-functioning and lackadaisical attitude, the Bombay High Court recently directed state health department's principal secretary and CEO of the authority to remain present during the next hearing in court.

The division bench of Justices NJ Jamadar and Gauri Godse appointed Senior Advocate JP Sen as amicus curiae.

The court took strong exception to the lack of instructions by the State to the government pleader. Even a copy of the government resolution, dated October 20, 2018, constituting the State Mental Health Authority has not been furnished to him, it observed.