Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 24 To January 30, 2022

Case Title: Anmol Steel Processors Pvt Ltd vs Colour Roof (India) Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 16

The Bombay High Court held that once payment is adjusted at the creditor's discretion under Section 60 of the Contract Act only to a few of the pending invoices instead of all, and the period of limitation has expired regarding all of them, the creditor then cannot claim a cheque getting dishonoured will extend the period of limitation on all pending payments.

2. Change Of Assessing Officer's Opinion Not Ground To Reopen Assessment U/S 147 Income Tax Act, Tangible Material Required: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vodafone Idea Ltd v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 17

In a case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Bombay High Court observed that where on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Assessing Officer, it would not be open to reopen the assessment based on mere change of opinion.

The Court further held that assessment can be reopened under Section 148 only on a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment on account of failure of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts that were necessary for computation of income but not in a case where the assessment is sought to be reopened on account of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer.

3. Completion Of Investigation Not A Condition Precedent For Eligibility Under 'Sabka Vishwas' Scheme: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Nabeel Construction Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India And 2 Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 18

Observing that a liberal interpretation had to be given to the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 (SVLDRS) as the intent was to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes pre-GST era, the Bombay High Court quashed a show-cause cum-demand notice against a construction company.

4. Motor Accident Compensation: Claimant Entitled To Future Loss Of Income Proportionate To Extent Of Disability Though There Is No Total Loss Of Income: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Hareshwar Harishchandra Mistry v Pravin B. Nayak

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 19

The Bombay High Court held that while determining the compensation that the applicant would be entitled to on account of loss of future earnings, even if the applicant has not suffered total loss of income due to permanent disability. It was held that the claimant would be entitled to proportional of notional income corresponding to the extent of his disability. Accordingly, the Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant-claimant from Rs.50,000 to Rs.2,70,000.

5. State Instrumentalities Not Having Power To Create Posts Cannot Regularise Workers: Bombay High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Raigad Zilla Parishad & Ors v Kailash Balu Mhatre & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 20

Bombay High Court reiterated that Standing Order 4C of the Model Standing Orders, framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 cannot be invoked with reference to State Instrumentalities or such local authorities, which do not have the power of creating posts.

When an establishment cannot create posts, the declaration of ULP under Item 6 cannot be made against such establishment since temporary workers cannot be regularised, in the absence of sanctioned permanent posts.

6. Maharashtra Rent Control Act - Affidavit Mandatory For Application Seeking Leave To Defend Under Sec 43(4): Bombay High Court

Case Title: Laxman Dadasaheb Jagtap v Additional Commissioner, Konkan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 21

In a recent case, the Bombay High Court reiterated that in the absence of an affidavit, a simple application for leave to defend would not enable a petitioner to claim benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act.

Section 4 of the Limitation Act provides that - Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court reopens.

7. 'Girl Child Is Not Property That Can Be Donated': Bombay HC Disturbed At 'Danpatra' By Gangrape Victim's Father To Godman

Case Title: Shankeshwar @ Shambhu s/o Bhausaheb Dhakne vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 22

A girl child is not property that can be donated, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) observed during a bail hearing after it noticed a 'danpatra' according to which the rape victim's father had allegedly donated her to a self-proclaimed godman.

Justice Vibha Kankanwadi directed the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to ascertain if the teen was fit to be declared as a 'child in need of care and protection' as contemplated under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

8. 'CCTVs In Police Stations Deliberately Kept Non-Functional' : Bombay High Court Seeks Report From Maharashtra Govt

Case Title: Somnath Laxman Giri vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 23

The Bombay High Court took strong exception to the seemingly deliberate non-functioning of CCTV cameras inside police stations and directed Maharashtra's Chief Secretary to take "stern action" against police officers for not reporting cameras that required repair.

9. Not Required To Show Prejudice, Where There Is Violation Of Fundamental Rights – Bombay High Court Directs Customs To Pay Rs. 2cr For 23 Year Delay

Case Title: Sushitex Exports (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 24

The Bombay High Court directed the Customs department to refund Rs 2 crore along with an interest of 12% per annum to a fabric-exporter due to the delay of 23 years in deciding a fraud case initiated against him.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik observed while setting aside the demand notice, "While the respondents' right in law to initiate proceedings for violation of the provisions of the Act can never be disputed, at the same time they do not have the unfettered right to choose a time for its termination and conclude proceedings as per their convenience."

10. Consider Decentralization Of Medical Purchases For Hospitals : Bombay High Court To Maharashtra Govt

Case Title: CH Sharma & Oths Versus State of Maharashtra and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 25

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra Government to consider de-centralizing the purchase of medical essentials for medical colleges and hospitals in the state.

"We are of the view that in the interest of efficient management of Hospitals and making available proper treatment to patients being admitted to the Government Hospitals in an effective and quicker manner, it is necessary that the Deans of these colleges are permitted to make purchases of all the medical essentials at their respective levels…" the bench observed.

11. "Shocking" Can't Keep A Prisoner In Solitary Confinement For More Than 14 Days - Bombay High Court Rescues Convict After 2.4 Years In Anda Cell

Case Title: Shaikh Ruheena vs The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 26

"I have forgotten how to communicate with human beings, every human feeling has been wiped out, even animals are not kept like this," Imran Shaikh a convicted prisoner in solitary confinement for 2 years and four months, had written in anguish to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Aurangabad, in vain.

Last week, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench took cognisance of Shaikh's wife's letter, and directed prison official to transfer him to an ordinary prison cell with immediate effect, and ordered a team of doctors visit prison and ascertain his condition.

The court, further, directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, to visit Shaikh in prison, record his statement and report to the HC on the condition of the Anda cell.

Other Significant Updates

1. FIR Against Google CEO Sundar Pichai, YouTube MD Gautam Anand And Others In Copyright Infringement

The Mumbai police, on January 26, registered an FIR against the CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai, along with five others in a copyright infringement case. Gautam Anand, Managing Director of YouTube, is also an accused in the case.

The FIR was registered following a Magistrate's order under section 156(3) of the CrPC on a private complaint filed by producer Suneel Darshan regarding his 2017 film "Ek Haseena Thi Ek Deewana Tha" being illegally uploaded on YouTube.

2. PIL For Permanent DGP Makes Personal Allegations Against Sanjay Pandey: Bombay High Adds Him As Necessary Party

Days after the Bombay High Court concluded hearing a PIL seeking appointment of a permanent Director General of Police (DGP) in Maharashtra, the court impleaded acting DGP Sanjay Pandey as a party.

Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik observed they had come across certain portions of the PIL where direct allegations were made against Pandey, making him a necessary party/ respondent.

3. Seems She Is The Victim': Mumbai Court Discharges Shilpa Shetty In Obscenity Case Over 2007 Richard Gere Kissing Incident

A Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Ballard Pier discharged actress Shilpa Shetty in an obscenity case from 2007. Shetty was booked after Hollywood Actor Richard Gere hugged and kissed her during an AIDS awareness event in Alwar, Rajasthan.

Shetty and Gere were booked under Sections 292 (Sale, etc., of obscene books), 293 (Sale, etc., of obscene objects to young person), 294 (Obscene acts and songs), 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC, Section 67 of the IT Act and sections 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.