Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 31 To August 6, 2022

Vikas Balwant Alase & Ors. V/s. Union of India through Secretary & Ors. with connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 275

Smita Pansare vs State of Maharashtra 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 276

Mr. Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar v Mr. Laxmikant Govind Joshi 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 277

Xyz vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors (WP 9012 of 2022) 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 278

Rajendra R. Singh versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 279

ROUND-UP

Bombay High Court Disallows Maratha Community Candidates To Avail Retrospective Benefits Under EWS Category In MSEDCL Recruitment Drive

Case Title- Vikas Balwant Alase & Ors. V/s. Union of India through Secretary & Ors. with connected matters

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 275

The Bombay High Court declared as "unjustified" and "Illegal" Maharashtra Government's decision to allow members of the Maratha community to avail benefits under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category midway through an electricity distribution recruitment drive.

The court said that Maratha community candidates (SEBC candidates) were aware that their selection process would be subject to Supreme Court's order in the Maratha Reservation matter.

So once SC's interim order barred them from being considered under the reserved category of MSEBC Act in 2020, the State couldn't have issued a GR permitting eligible candidates to be considered under the EWS reservation.

Govind Pansare Murder: Bombay High Court Directs Transfer Of Probe To Anti-Terrorism Squad

Case Title - Smita Pansare vs State of Maharashtra

Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 276

The Bombay High Court directed the transfer of investigation into the 2015 murder of communist leader Govind Pansare from the Special investigations Team to the ATS's Anti-Terrorism Squad, seven years after the leader was shot at on his morning walk.

The bench observed that it has been monitoring the SIT's investigation in the case since 2016, but no major headway is made and sharpshooters are still absconding.

"Despite the efforts of the Officers of SIT, there is no breakthrough. The wait for the family of Comrade Pansare has been long, for almost seven years. There is a legitimate expectation not only for the family of Comrade Pansare, but also the public at large, to see that the perpetrators of the ghastly crime, are brought to book. And, this is the responsibility of the investigating machinery, which exists to preserve law and order."

S.143A NI Act | Court Not Obliged To Direct Payment Of Interim Compensation In Cheque Bounce Cases: Bombay High Court

Case Title- Mr. Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar v Mr. Laxmikant Govind Joshi

Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 277

The Bombay High Court has said that courts don't have a duty to grant interim compensation to the complainant in a cheque bounce case. If interim compensation is granted, the judge has to record reasons for determining the amount of interim compensation.

The court said that the provisions of section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are directory rather than mandatory.

Bombay High Court Refuses Mentally Challenged Rape Victim To Terminate 35-Week Pregnancy Citing Health Risk

Case Title – Xyz vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors (WP 9012 of 2022)

Citation - - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 278

The Bombay High Court has refused to allow a mentally challenged rape victim to terminate her 35-week (8.5 months) pregnancy after a board of medical experts opined it was a high risk to maternal health.

A division bench of Justices Gangapurwala and AS Doctor said that the court would be guided by the report of the Expert Committee, but since the pregnancy was a result of rape, certain directions were necessary:

The investigator should remain present at the time of delivery so that DNA samples can be collected soon after the delivery and be used during the trial.

If the child is born alive, the State should take care of the child in accordance with guideline under a 2019 landmark judgement on Medical Termination of Pregnancy.

Recovery Of Tax Dues Of A Company From Its Directors Under Section 179 Of Income TaxAct, Cannot Be Invoked Casually: Bombay High Court

Case Title - Rajendra R. Singh versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Citation – 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 279

The Bombay High Court ruled that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the director of a public company, to recover the tax dues of the said company, is violative of the principles of natural justice, where the Income Tax Authority has failed to give any opportunity of hearing to the director before applying the principle of 'lifting the corporate veil'.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Abhay Ahuja, held that the recovery procedure under Section 179 against the directors of the assessee company cannot be resorted to casually.

Other developments

[8 Yrs Delay In POCSO Trial] Bombay High Court Seeks Principal Judge's Explanation On Unequal Distribution Of Cases To Designated Courts

Case Title - Mr.Azaruddin Nihaluddin Mirsilkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Bombay High Court sought an explanation from the Principal Judge (PJ), City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai regarding the unequal distribution of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Acts to the designated courts.

Justice Bharati Dangre noted a "startling feature," that among the four functional POCSO courts at Dindoshi, court number 11 had been allotted 1,228 cases and 1,070 cases were allotted to court number 12. However, the remaining two courts were assigned merely 138 and 116 cases, each.

Paltry Remuneration, Insufficient Support Staff For Committee Set Up For Publishing Ambedkar's Works: Bombay High Court Expresses Displeasure

Case Title – High Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra

Citation - 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 278

The Bombay High Court remarked that the honorarium and allowances granted to non-official members of the committee overseeing publication of the works of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was insufficient.

"Honorarium must be honorarium. We accept they may not ask for more but is it not the duty of the govt that it pays amount commensurate of their status, knowledge and services being rendered?" Justice PB Varale remarked.