Bombay High Court Weekly Round-up [February 27- March 5, 2023]

Shoyab Mehtab Ali vs Divisional Commissioner and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 126

Lok Developers vs Deputy Commissioner of Income tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 127

Rakesh Tulsidas Rathod V/s. Jayraj Vishram Vapikar & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 128

Dilip Babubhai Shah and Ors. v. Additional Resident Deputy Collector and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 129

Shaikh Sana Farheen Shahmir and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 130

Shiva Chanappa Odala v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 131

Rita Kirit Joshi v. New India Assurance 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 132

[Maharashtra Prison Rules] Set Off & Remission Included For Calculating Period Of Incarceration To Determine Parole Eligibility: High Court

Case Title: Shoyab Mehtab Ali v. Divisional Commissioner and Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 126

The Bombay High Court held that the period of incarceration that prisoner has undergone has to be calculated including the period of set off and remission to determine eligibility for parole or furlough under the Maharashtra Prison (Parole and Furlough) Rules.

A division bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes sitting at Nagpur while setting aside rejection of a prisoner’s parole application held –

“Therefore, while applying Rule 4[2] of the Rules, one has to calculate the period by including the period of set off and remission earned by the petitioner. Therefore, as admittedly the petitioner has undergone the entire period awarded for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Code, he is eligible for furlough leave.”

Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Proceedings On The Ground That S. 148 Notice Was Served On Secondary Email Id Provided In PAN

Case Title: Lok Developers vs Deputy Commissioner of Income tax

Citation - 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 127

The Bombay High Court set aside the proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities against the assessee for non-compliance of the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the notice was served on the secondary email id registered with the PAN database instead of the registered primary email id or the updated email id mentioned by the assessee in its last Return of Income.

While holding that the Assessing Officer had clearly erred in issuing a notice on the secondary email address when there was a primary email address given by the assessee, the bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Kamal Khata held that the proceedings were vitiated due to lack of a valid service of notice on the assessee.

The petitioner/ assessee, Lok Developers, challenged the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

Bombay High Court Orders Child’s custody to Given to the Father At the Police Station

Case Title: Rakesh Tulsidas Rathod V/s. Jayraj Vishram Vapikar & Ors

Citation - 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 128

Amid the cries of a 10-year-old child refusing to be taken away by his biological father, the Bombay High Court asked the maternal grandfather to handover the child’s custody to the father at the police station later in the day.

A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and PD Naik denied to look at video footage of the child screaming for help and then physically fighting off the father while the latter attempted to forcibly take him away from the High Court premises. The court was seized with a contempt petition filed by the father against the maternal grandfather and uncle to handover the child's custody.

Collector Can Award Compensation To Extent Of Share In Land Under Acquisition Even In Absence Of Other Claimants, Sans Enquiry: Bombay High Court

Case Title – Dilip Babubhai Shah and Ors. v. Additional Resident Deputy Collector and Ors.

Citation – 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 129

The Bombay High Court recently held that the Collector can pass a compensation award in favour of persons having share in the property under acquisition to the extent of their share even if other interested persons claiming share do not appear before the Collector.

A division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice MM Sathaye upheld the compensation award for acquisition of certain land for the Bullet Train Project under the Fair Compensation Act. The award was challenged on the ground that it was passed without the petitioners’ consent.

Relationship Cannot Be Said To Have "Religious Angle" Merely Because Boy And Girl Are From Different Religions: Bombay High Court

Case Title – Shaikh Sana Farheen Shahmir and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation – 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 130

A case will not have religious angle merely because the boy and girl in a relationship are from different religions, the Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court held.

A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghwase granted anticipatory bail to a Muslim woman and her family accused of forcing a Hindu man to convert to Islam.

Bombay High Court Quashes Sexual Assault Case Under POCSO After Child’s Mother Consents

Case Title: Shiva Chanappa Odala v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation – 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 131

The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a 19-year-old male student under IPC and POCSO for the abduction and sexual assault of a minor teenager with the complainant’s - mother’s consent.

Justices Nitin Sambre and SG Dige observed that the couple was on “friendly terms” and lived together without informing the girl’s parents. And this miscommunication was the reason behind the FIR.

‘Newborn’ Baby Includes ‘Pre-Mature Baby’: Bombay High Court Directs Insurer To Pay For Expenses Related To Infant’s Care, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost

Case Title: Rita Kirit Joshi v. New India Assurance

Citation – 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 132

In a significant order the Bombay High Court has held that a ‘newborn’ baby would include a ‘pre-mature baby’ and the insurer would be liable to pay for all expenses related to the infant’s care.

It rejected the insurance policy clause which stated that “expenses relating to illness or injury to the new-born” did not include “expenses relating to postnatal care, pre-term or premature care.” “It is distinction without a difference,” the bench said.