Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 12 To March 18, 2023

Pidilite Industries Limited v. Chiripal Industries Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 135

Jetair Pvt Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 136

Mahendranath Vidyaniwas Trivedi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 137

All India Service Engineers Association v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 138

Sara Chemicals and Consultants v. Deepak Nitrite Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 139

Gouri Abhay Bhide and Anr v. Union of India and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 140

Lakshdeep Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 141

Mantras Green Resources Ltd. & Ors. v. Canara Bank 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 142

Dagadu Shivaji Lodhe And Anr v. Bhaurao Fakira Dongre And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 143

Murlidhar Waman Bombale & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 144

Sangeeta Natwarlal Karwa and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 145

State of Maharashtra and Ors v. Surendra G. Ghodake 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 146

Chandrapur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 147

Reports/Judgments

Fevicol v. Tickawoo: Bombay High Court Finds No Prima Facie "Deceptive Similarity" In Logos, Grants Interim Relief For Certain Products

Case Title: Pidilite Industries Limited v. Chiripal Industries Limited

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 135

The Bombay High Court held that there is no prima facie deceptive similarity between Fevicol manufacturer Pidilite Industries’ logo having two elephants against backdrop of a sunset and Chiripal Industries’ logo having containing word Tikawoo with the device of a rhino against the backdrop of sun.

The court however, granted interim injunction in favour of Pidilite restraining Chiripal from using marks similar or identical to plaintiff’s “HEATX”, “LW+”, and “LW” marks.

Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Proceedings Against Jetair

Case Title: Jetair Pvt Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 136

The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment proceedings against Jetair Pvt Ltd, a group entity of Jet Airways (India) Ltd, and has set aside the notice issued by the revenue department under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 against Jetair, seeking to reopen assessment for the relevant assessment year.

The bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Kamal Khata rejected the contentions raised by revenue department that payment of commission to Jetair, who is a sales agent of Jet Airways, at a rate lower than what is charged by it from other unrelated airlines on the domestic and international ticket sales, was a colourable device, with an aim to evade tax.

Documents Dubious: Bombay High Court Upholds ONGC’s Ban On Contractor From Participating In Tender Process

Case Title: Mahendranath Vidyaniwas Trivedi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 137

Observing that it was a question of a public tender process being subverted by ex-facie dubious documents, the Bombay High Court rejected a contractor’s petition against the Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale refused to set aside ONGC’s order banning the petitioner - Carlton Industries Engineers from participating in any of the bids for six months.

The petitioner was banned after ONGC’s enquiry officer concluded that Carlton had submitted a revised Undated Completion Certificate in collusion with the Project Coordinator of work at ONGC with a sole intent to take advantage and get themselves qualified for tender.

“…The undated certificate seems to shower compliments on the Petitioner, apart from wishing him great success and all good luck. To say that we have never seen ONGC or its officers acting in so magnanimous fashion with any contractor might be a great understatement,” the bench observed.

The court also said there were disputed questions of fact which couldn’t be adjudicated in the petition under Article 226 of the constitution.

Eviction Of Air India Employees Due To Privatisation Cannot Be Termed An Industrial Dispute: Bombay High Court

Case Title: All India Service Engineers Association v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 138

Holding that Air India employees were granted accommodation on leave and license and not as a matter of right, the Bombay High Court held that eviction of employees due to privatisation cannot be termed an Industrial dispute.

A division bench of Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by employee unions of Air India challenging the Central Government’s refusal to refer the dispute to the industrial tribunal.

Arbitrator’s Direction For Disclosure Of Not Relevant Information Is An Order Under S. 19 And Not 17 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sara Chemicals and Consultants v. Deepak Nitrite Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 139

The Bombay High Court ruled that no appeal is maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) against the order of the Arbitral Tribunal directing the party to disclose the contents of sealed envelope submitted by it at the time of tendering of evidence, since the same did not relate to the subject matter of arbitration nor was it a subject matter of the claim/counter claim raised by the parties and thus, it fell outside the purview of Section 17.

The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that the power exercised by the Arbitrator in allowing the application filed by the claimant and in directing disclosure of the information submitted by the opposite party in the sealed envelope, is an order passed under Section 19 and not under Section 17 since power under Section 17 can only be exercised for protection of the subject matter of the dispute.

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Probe Into Uddhav Thackeray's Alleged Disproportionate Wealth

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 140

The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking CBI and ED investigation into the alleged "disproportionate" wealth of Maharashtra's ex-CM Uddhav Thackeray, his wife and two sons.

"We hold this petition is an abuse of the process of the law," a division bench of Justices Dhiraj Thakur and Valmiki Menezes said imposing Rs. 25,000 cost on Dadar residents Gouri Bhide (38) and Abhay Bhide (78).

The bench found the petition to be "bereft of any evidence", much less evidence which would give a basis to come to a conclusion that a prima facie case was made out for the CBI or any other agency.

Reassessment Notice Issued By The AO Merely On The Basis Of Change Of Opinion: Bombay High Court Quashes Order

Case Title: Lakshdeep Investments & Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 141

The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment order on the grounds that the only reason for issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act appeared to be that the Assessing Officer had come to a different opinion on the question of valuation than the one adopted by the petitioner.

The division bench of Justice Dheeraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes has observed that the order rejecting the objections has not even once mentioned the valuation report submitted by the petitioner during the earlier assessment proceedings after scrutiny, nor does it refer to the method used by the petitioner for valuation.

Though Borrower Can File Civil Suit Despite The Remedy Of Counter Claim In DRT, In Light Of Section 8 Of The A&C Act, Bombay High Court Refers The Parties To Arbitration

Case Title: Mantras Green Resources Ltd. & Ors. v. Canara Bank

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 142

The Bombay High Court reiterated that the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court only in respect of the applications filed by banks/ financial institutions for recovery of debt, however, it does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try a suit filed by the borrower.

The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre remarked that even though a remedy is available to the borrower to file a counterclaim in the application filed by the bank/financial institution before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), the same does not bar the borrower to file a civil suit raising an independent claim against the bank/financial institution.

While dealing with an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) by the borrower, the Court held that since the borrower has an option to file a civil suit, Section 8 of the A&C Act will immediately come into picture, in view of the arbitration clause existing between the parties. The Court thus referred the parties to arbitration.

Section 151 CPC | Bombay High Court Allows Correction In Sale Deed After 38 Yrs

Case Title: Dagadu Shivaji Lodhe And Anr v. Bhaurao Fakira Dongre And Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 143

Observing that the Court’s powers under Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure are to rectify errors and do substantial justice, the Bombay High Court allowed correction in a sale deed after thirty-eight years.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is elastic enough to apply the law in a meaningful manner to meet the ends of justice, Justice Sharmila Deshmukh at the Aurangabad bench observed.

Farmer Murdered While Trying To Draw Water From Neighbour’s Tank Due To Water Shortage, Bombay High Court Upholds Life Sentence

Case Title: Murlidhar Waman Bombale & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 144

A single deathly blow doesn’t warrant commuting a murder conviction to culpable homicide, the Bombay High court observed while upholding the life sentence of a man who struck his neighbour with a sickle in 2012.

A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Abhay Waghwase refused to commute 25-year-old Murlidhar Bombale’s conviction for 302 (murder) to 304(II) (culpable homicide) of the IPC. The court however acquitted Bombale’s brother and father of the murder charge and merely held them guilty under sections 324 (causing hurt by dangerous weapons) and 325 (grievous hurt) of the IPC.

Competent Authority Cannot Make Corrections Once Land Acquisition Award Passed Under National Highways Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sangeeta Natwarlal Karwa and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 145

The Bombay High Court held that once a land acquisition compensation award is passed under the National Highways Act, 1956 by the competent authority, the authority cannot make corrections in it.

A division bench of Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice MM Sathaye held –

“The National Highways Act, 1956 being the self-contained code, the provisions of Section 33 of the Fair Compensation Act, 2013 granting the limited powers in respect of the award declared under the provisions of the Fair Compensation Act, 2013 cannot be extended to the award declared under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956.”

"It cannot be held that the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956, would have any power or authority to either correct the award for any reason whatsoever or for that matter, to pass an additional award or to review the same," it added.

Acquittal For Cruelty Upon Wife Based On Compromise, Not Merits: Bombay High Court Says Dismissed Constable Not Entitled To 100% Backwages

Case Title: State of Maharashtra and Ors v. Surendra G. Ghodake

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 146

The Bombay High Court held that a man whose conviction for cruelty to wife was set aside due to compromise and not merits would not be entitled to 100 percent back wages during the period of his dismissal from service.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne set aside a Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order granting 100 percent back wages to a constable who was convicted of cruelty but later acquitted due to compromise.

CM Eknath Shinde Has No Power To Interfere With Decision Of In-Charge Minister On Subject Matter Assigned: Bombay High Court (livelaw.in)

Case Title: Chandrapur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 147

The Bombay High Court recently held that the Chief Minister of Maharashtra does not have independent powers to interfere with the subject assigned to another Minister.

Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes of the Nagpur bench quashed CM’s order staying the recruitment process of the Chandrapur District Central Co-operative Bank observing that the subject fell under the authority of the Minister of Co-operation.

The court added that there must be express provision authorizing the CM to act on a matter assigned to a particular Ministry. Further, under the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business and Instructions the Minister is not subordinate to the Chief Minister regarding independent functioning of a department assigned to him, said the court.