Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: April 2024 [Citations 176

Suhas Manohar Wankhede v. Election Fee of India & Others 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 176

Kirloskar Pneumatic Firm v. Kataria Gross sales Company 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 177

Riak Insurance coverage and Monetary Providers & Ors. v. HDFC Financial institution Restricted 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 178

Niranjani Chandramouli v. Amit Ganpathi Shet and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 179

M/s. OM Siddhakala Associates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Revenue Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 180

Motwane Personal Ltd. v. Registrar of Commerce Marks and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 181

‘Okay’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 182

Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Manufacturing facility v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 183

Soheb Sageerali Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 184

Indi Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Commerce Marks & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 185

Janadhar Sevabhavi Sanstha, Latur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 186

Cardinal Power and Infra Construction Personal Ltd. v. Subramanya Building and Improvement Co. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 187

Kalpita Arun Lanjekar v. Revenue Tax Officer 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 188

PCIT v. M/s. Tata Capital Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 189

Sarang Wadhawan v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 190

Nitin Rajendra Gupta v. Deputy Collector, Mumbai and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 191

Vodafone India Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 192

ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 193

XYZ v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 194

ABC v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 195

Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 196

Hindustan Petroleum Company Ltd. v. Mavji Jethalal Rathod 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 197

Arun P. Gidh v. Chandraprakash Singh and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 198

Anand Narayan Sakpal v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 199

Sumit Suresh Extra v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 200

Arun Gulab Gawli v. State of Maharashtra 201

Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v. ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 202

Dipak P. Mali v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 203

Durgadas s/o. Sunil Saindane v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 204

Ramesh Sippy v. Sunhil Ajit Sippy & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 205

Ram Kotumal Issrani v. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 206

Bhausaheb Bhujangrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 207

Commissioner of Revenue Tax Central v. Revenue Tax Settlement Fee 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 208

Tiger Side Children & Household Restricted v. Mr. Bean Trampoline Park / Mr. Been Trampoline Park 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 209

M/s. Agarwal Coal Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Help. Commissioner of State Tax. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 210

Khanjan Jagadishkumar Thakkar v. Waahiid Ali Khan & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 211

Ceat Restricted v. Commissioner of Revenue Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 212

Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 213

Nijam Asgar Hashmi v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 214

Sheela Chowgule v. Vijay V. Chowgule 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 215

Shikha Lodha v. Suketu Shah and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 216

ABC v. XYZ 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 217

Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 218

NP Enterprises v. Basic Supervisor, Western Railway 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 219

Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State of Maharashtra 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 220

Telex Promoting Pvt Ltd v. Central Railway 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 221

Glencore India Pvt Ltd v. Amma Strains Restricted 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 222

Mahendra Bansilal Patil v. Commissioner of Transport & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 223

PCIT v. Tata Metal 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 224

Sham v. Walve 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 225

Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak v. Registrar Basic, Bombay Excessive Court docket and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 226

Indus Towers Restricted v. Rajendra Patil (Yedravkar) and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 227

Maharashtra State Street Transport Company v. Dattatraya Ganpat Bankhele 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 228

Bhushan Industries v. Lohasingh Ramavadh Yadav 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 229

Taher Fakhruddin Saheb v. Mufaddal Burhanuddin Saifuddin 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 230

Nilesh Chandrakant Kamble v. MMRDA Govt of Maharashtra & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 231

XYZ v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 232

Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 233

Shramik Janata Sangh and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 234

Balaji Mines And Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 235

Mehraj @ Meraj Kaddan Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 236

Reviews/Judgments

ECI Has Already Taken Steps: Bombay Excessive Court docket Dismisses PIL Looking for Instructions On ECI To Create Voter Consciousness For ‘NOTA’

Case Title: Suhas Manohar Wankhede v. Election Fee of India & Others

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 176

The Bombay Excessive Court docket dismissed a PIL searching for instructions to the Election Fee of India (ECI) to create consciousness in public in regards to the ‘Not one of the Above’ (NOTA) possibility on digital voting machines (EVM).

A division bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice RM Joshi famous that the petitioner, one Suhas Wankhede, had beforehand filed an an identical PIL wherein the court docket had addressed the problem adequately.

“We discover that the Election Fee has already come out with a handbook on Systematic Voters Training and Electoral Participation (SVEEP), which was revealed in July 2020. The SVEEP Technique 2022-2025 (4) was additionally revealed…Having thought of the above elements and the steps taken by the Election Fee of India and the State Election Fee, and the truth that this Petitioner had filed an an identical Petition earlier, this PIL Petition is dismissed”, the court docket additional noticed.

No Requirement Of Contemporary Part 21 Discover For Re-Commencing The Arbitration After The First Award Is Set Apart Underneath Part 34: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Kirloskar Pneumatic Firm v. Kataria Gross sales Company

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 177

The Excessive Court docket of Bombay held that there isn’t a requirement of Part 21 discover for re-commencing the arbitration after the primary award is put aside underneath Part 34 of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that in such a state of affairs there can be no requirement of a contemporary invocation discover as the other occasion would already pay attention to the existence of the dispute.

Waiver Of Arbitrator’s Ineligibility Should Be Made By Settlement In Writing, Part 12(5) Does Not Present For Deemed Consent: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Riak Insurance coverage and Monetary Providers & Ors. v. HDFC Financial institution Restricted

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 178

The Bombay Excessive Court docket single bench of Justice RI Chagla held that the ineligibility of the arbitrator may solely be waived if each events agree by an specific settlement in writing as per Part 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. Events’ consent can’t be implied in any other case.

Motor Accident Claims | Driver With Heavy Items Car Driving Licence Can Drive Gentle Motor Autos: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Niranjani Chandramouli v. Amit Ganpathi Shet and Ors.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 179

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that having a Heavy Items Car (HGV) driving licence doesn’t make an individual ineligible to drive a Gentle Motor Car (LMV), as part 7 of the Motor Autos Act offers for a minimal one-year-old LMV licence as a pre-requisite for HGV licence.

Justice Shivkumar Dige put aside a judgment by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal refused to carry an insurance coverage firm liable in a motor accident on the bottom that the offending car was an LMV, however the driver possessed a driving license for HGV.

“This Part prescribes one yr minimal driving expertise in gentle motorized vehicle earlier than an individual issuing driving license to drive a transport car. Admittedly, within the current case the motive force of offending car was holding driving license for heavy good car. Although it’s categorized in numerous class, as per Part 10 however after getting expertise in driving LMV, the license in HGV is issued. So possessing the license of HGV and driving the LMV car can’t be a floor to say that the motive force was not eligible to drive the LMV car”, the court docket noticed.

Income Officers Sure By Choices Of Appellate Authorities Whereas Disposing Quasi-Judicial Points: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: M/s. OM Siddhakala Associates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Revenue Tax

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 180

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that the income officers are certain by the choices of appellate authorities whereas disposing of quasi-judicial points.

The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale noticed that the mere incontrovertible fact that the order is just not acceptable to the division, in itself an objectionable phrase, can furnish no floor for not following it, until its operation has been suspended by the competent court docket. If this wholesome rule is just not adopted, the consequence would solely be undue harassment of assessees and chaos within the administration of tax legal guidelines.

S.25(3) Logos Act | Registrar Cannot Refuse To Renew Mark On Grounds Of Delay If Not Eliminated From Register After Issuance Of Discover: Bombay HC

Case Title: Motwane Personal Ltd. v. Registrar of Commerce Marks and Anr.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 181

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that the Trademark Registrar can not refuse to resume a trademark on the grounds of delay if it has not been faraway from the register after issuance of elimination discover underneath part 25(3) of the Logos Act, 1999.

A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla directed the Registrar to resume three of the petitioners’ emblems, which inadvertently remained on the Commerce Marks Register regardless of lapse in renewal.

“When there’s a two-way lapse, that’s, a lapse not solely on the a part of the registered proprietor in not making an utility for renewal of registration, but in addition a lapse on the a part of respondent no. 1 (Registrar), in not issuing discover of elimination of the commerce mark, the consequence can be, that the mark though not renewed would proceed to stay on the register of respondent no.1, proven because the mark of the registered proprietor. In these circumstances, definitely a chance is on the market to the registered proprietor to make an utility for renewal, given that the mark is just not faraway from the register of commerce marks, maintained by the Registrar.”

The court docket allowed the writ petition filed by the trademark proprietor difficult the non-renewal of its emblems.

MV Guidelines 1989 | Bombay Excessive Court docket Upholds Levy Of Extra Charges For Delayed Renewal Of Car Registration, Driving Licence

Case Title: ‘Okay’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha v. Union of India and Ors.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 182

The Bombay Excessive Court docket dismissed a public curiosity litigation (PIL) and a writ petition difficult further charges imposed for delay in making use of for varied car associated companies together with renewal of driving license and car registration.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Physician held that the extra charges don’t represent a penalty however are a authentic cost for the processing of delayed functions.

“Part 211 of the mum or dad Act (Motor Autos Act), if interpreted appropriately, vests energy with the Central Authorities to make Guidelines offering for levy of further charge for processing delayed functions for sure functions similar to for searching for renewal of driving license, renewal of registration certificates of a car, change of residence and switch of possession of car. We additionally don’t have any hesitation to carry that the levy of further charge on this case, is in no method a penalty, both immediately or in disguise”, the court docket held.

The court docket disagreed with the judgment of the Madras Excessive Court docket placing down levy of further charges.

Retrospective Laws Cannot Have an effect on Vested Rights Of Assessee: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Manufacturing facility v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue Tax

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 183

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that retrospective laws can not have an effect on the vested rights of the assessee.

The bench of Justice Okay. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale noticed that when the Division has prolonged the final date from February 1, 2021, to September 30, 2021, it could actually solely lengthen the deadline however can not introduce a brand new idea of eligibility as of February 1, 2021, which isn’t within the Revenue Tax Act itself. Although the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) relaxed the trials of the provisions of the Revenue Tax Act for the good thing about assessees, it’s not open to the CBDT to place in new rigors or impediments to the rights of an assessee in a press launch or a notification which might be opposite to the provisions of the Revenue Tax Act.

Maharashtra Board Cannot Cancel Enchancment Examination End result Merely As a result of Pupil Did not Accumulate Marksheet Inside 6 Months: Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Soheb Sageerali Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 184

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Larger Secondary Training can not cancel the Larger Secondary Certificates (HSC) re-examination outcomes merely as a result of the scholar didn’t accumulate the marksheet inside 6 months.

A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain allowed a writ petition filed by a pupil difficult the cancellation of his 2018 consequence and searching for issuance of the marksheet.

“We fail to grasp the stand of Respondent No.2 (Maharashtra Board) as to when a pupil has cleared his re-examination with improved marks then merely due to the ministerial act of the scholar not having collected the marksheet, his consequence itself stands cancelled. There isn’t a logic past such a refusal or cancellation”, the court docket held.

Bombay HC Directs Trademark Registrar To Resolve Purposes For Renewal/Restoration Of Expired Marks For Which No Removing Discover Is Issued

Case Title: Indi Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Commerce Marks & Anr.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 185

The Bombay Excessive Court docket directed the Trademark Registrar to determine inside 4 weeks of submitting functions for renewal or restoration of expired emblems in circumstances whereby no discover underneath part 25(3) of the Logos Act was issued to take away them from the registry.

A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni, whereas directing the restoration of a trademark that had been eliminated with out discover, handed this common route so events do not must unnecessarily method the court docket for renewal/restoration in such circumstances.

“This may preclude such events from resorting to unwarranted litigation in opposition to the Registrar of Logos by approaching this Court docket or resorting to another authorized proceedings. In our opinion, such functions if made are required to be accordingly determined by the Registrar of Logos as expeditiously as attainable and inside 4 weeks of such utility/s being made following the ideas of legislation as mentioned in Motwane Personal Ltd. (supra) by taking a choice on the departmental stage”, the court docket noticed.

Contemporary Tender Should Be Issued If Solely One Bid Acquired Inside Deadline: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Janadhar Sevabhavi Sanstha, Latur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 186

The Bombay Excessive Court docket quashed a young discover issued by the Latur Metropolis Municipal Company (LCMC) for the collection of an operator for the gathering, transportation, and processing of municipal stable waste.

A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar discovered varied irregularities within the tender course of. It directed LCMC to concern a contemporary tender discover in accordance with present legal guidelines and authorities resolutions.

The deadline of bid submission expired on February 28, 2024, as much as 2.00 pm, nonetheless, the extension was granted to March 5, 2024. The explanation for the extension of the deadline was that there was solely single bidder who was certified.

The petitioner argued that as per the Authorities Decision dated September 27, 2018, issued by the PWD, after LCMC realized that there’s just one bid, it ought to have invited a contemporary tender. The court docket famous the dearth of justification for the extension of the deadline and questioned why the rules outlined within the Authorities Decision dated September 27, 2018, weren’t adopted. No documentary proof was offered to assist the choice to increase the bid time, the court docket stated.

Group Of Firms | Absence Of Particular Prayer For Impleadment Of Non-Signatory Does not Preclude Arbitral Tribunal From Making use of GOC: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Cardinal Power and Infra Construction Personal Ltd. v. Subramanya Building and Improvement Co. Ltd.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 187

The Bombay Excessive Court docket single bench of Justice RI Chagla held that the arbitral tribunal has the facility to determine whether or not the non-signatory is certain by the Arbitration Settlement and to implead the non-signatory.

The Court docket held that the absence of a particular prayer for the impleadment of a non-signatory in a Part 11 Software doesn’t preclude the appliance of the ‘group of corporations’ doctrine by the arbitral tribunal.

Bombay Excessive Court docket Quashes Reassessment Order Towards Housewife When Property Was Bought By Her Husband

Case Title: Kalpita Arun Lanjekar v. Revenue Tax Officer

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 188

The Bombay Excessive Court docket quashed a reassessment order in opposition to a housewife when the alleged funding was made by her husband.

The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale noticed, “We even have to note that, surprisingly, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Revenue Tax has additionally accorded sanction for the issuance of this order as an alternative of directing the AO to drop the proceedings in opposition to the petitioner.”

The petitioner/assessee, a housewife who had no earnings and subsequently was not submitting any earnings tax return, obtained a discover from the Revenue Tax Officer underneath Part 148A(b) of the Revenue Tax Act, 1961. Within the discover, it was said that the officer has data that implies that earnings chargeable to tax for Evaluation 12 months 2016–2017 has escaped evaluation.

AO To Document Dissatisfaction With Correctness Of Declare Of Assessee In Respect Of Expenditure: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: PCIT v. M/s. Tata Capital Ltd.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 189

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that the Assessing Officer ought to report his dissatisfaction with the correctness of the declare of the assessee in respect of the expenditure, and to reach at such dissatisfaction, he ought to give cogent causes.

The Bench of Justice Okay. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale noticed that although the AO has said that the assessee’s rationalization is just not acceptable, he has not given explanation why it’s not acceptable to him. Part 14A(2) and Rule 8D present that if the Assessing Officer is just not happy with the correctness of the declare in respect of expenditure made by the assessee in relation to earnings that doesn’t type a part of the entire earnings underneath the Act, he shall decide the quantity of expenditure in relation to such earnings in accordance with the provisions prescribed.

Pending Cash Laundering Instances: Bombay Excessive Court docket Says Collective Accountability Of Probe Companies, Defence Counsel To Make System Work

Case Title: Sarang Wadhawan v. Directorate of Enforcement

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 190

The Bombay Excessive Court docket directed the Registrar Basic of the Excessive Court docket to evaluate and remedy the issue of complete backlog of circumstances, staffing ranges, and the allocation of judges for each scheduled offenses and people underneath the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act (PMLA) on the Mumbai Metropolis Civil and Classes Court docket.

Justice SM Modak added that Registrar Basic may search needed instructions from the Chief Justice with the intention to mitigate issues confronted by the prosecuting company in addition to by underneath trial prisoners. “It could occur that on account of intervention of realized Registrar Basic, the Metropolis Civil Court docket administration could also be boosted to cope with big pendency for scheduled and PMLA offence“, the court docket remarked.

The court docket additionally highlighted the shared tasks of investigating businesses, courts, and defence counsels in guaranteeing environment friendly case administration and emphasised the necessity for collective efforts to expedite trials.

“there may be additionally onerous accountability on the prosecuting Company by remaining vigilant. If their case is just not progressed (on account of pendency), they don’t seem to be remediless. They will request the pinnacle of that institution (i.e. Principal Decide) to assign the case to a different Court docket. Finally, operating of a system is collective accountability. The protection Counsels have additionally a task to play. On one hand, they have each proper to guard the curiosity of their purchasers and on the identical time, they’ve to return ahead for early disposal of the case. As a result of, they’re additionally half and parcel of the system. And the system should work. Defence Counsels are additionally a part of the identical Society for betterment of which system is created. Sadly, nothing has occurred of the type talked about above”

The court docket made these observations whereas granting bail to HDIL Promoters Rakesh and Sarang Wadhawan in a cash laundering case arising out of the Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Financial institution Restricted (PMC Financial institution) mortgage fraud case.

Senior Residents Act Can not Be Used As Equipment For Settling Property Disputes Between Heirs Of Senior Residents: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Nitin Rajendra Gupta v. Deputy Collector, Mumbai and Ors.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 191

The Bombay Excessive Court docket noticed that the Upkeep and Welfare of Dad and mom and Senior Residents Act, 2007 can’t be used as a equipment for settling property disputes between the heirs of senior residents.

Justice Sandeep Marne made these observations whereas coping with a writ petition by a person difficult the order of the upkeep tribunal nullifying varied reward deeds executed by his senior citizen father in his favour.

The petitioner had alleged that his brother instigated his father to hunt annulment of reward deeds as he desires a share within the gifted flats.

“The supply of Part 23(1) of Senior Residents Act can’t be used as a equipment for settling property disputes between the heirs of senior residents. Nevertheless, sadly in lots of circumstances, it’s noticed that such a plan of action is taken by the events…The Tribunal subsequently has to make sure that the availability is just not misused by youngsters who’re denied share within the immovable properties by searching for to get gift-deed annulled by submitting utility by senior residents”, the court docket noticed.

The court docket noticed that the target of Part 23(1) of the Senior Residents Act is to make sure fundamental facilities for seniors, to not nullify legitimate transfers.

Approval To Reopen Evaluation Towards Vodafone Granted By The Dept. In A Most Informal Method: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Vodafone India Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue Tax

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 192

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that the approval has been granted in a most informal method. The facility vested within the authorities underneath Part 151 to grant or not grant approval to the AO to reopen the evaluation is coupled with an obligation. The authorities have been duty-bound to use their minds to the proposal put up for approval in gentle of fabric relied upon by the AO.

The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale noticed that it was compulsory on all of the authorities and PCCIT specifically to think about whether or not or not energy to reopen is being invoked correctly.

“We’re of the opinion that if solely the authorities had learn the report fastidiously, they might by no means have come to the conclusion that this can be a match case for issuance of discover underneath Part 148 of the Act. They might have both instructed the AO to right the figures in Column 7 or would have despatched the papers again for reconsideration. These officers have substituted type for substance,” the bench stated.

Bombay Excessive Court docket Permits 2010 Acid Assault Victims To Search Compensation Regardless of Lapse Of Limitation Interval

Case Title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 193

The Bombay Excessive Court docket allowed three victims in a 2010 acid assault case to hunt compensation past the limitation interval of three years offered within the Maharashtra Sufferer Compensation Scheme for Ladies Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Different Crimes, 2022.

A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain discovered the case deserving because the 2022 Scheme was applied throughout the pendency of the victims’ petition for compensation.

“We discover the current case to be a deserving one given that after being subjected to an acid assault, the petitioners have been required to method this Court docket within the matter of grant of compensation. Throughout pendency of this writ petition, the Scheme of 2022 got here to be applied. We subsequently discover that the petitioners could be permitted to maneuver an utility searching for compensation in accordance with the Scheme of 2022.”

Hospitals Cannot Insist On Police Criticism As A Pre-Situation To Present Medical Care To Pregnant Minor: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: XYZ v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 194

The Bombay Excessive Court docket directed the state authorities to offer medical care to a 17-year-old pregnant lady who did not file a police grievance in opposition to her associate, additionally a minor, and was refused therapy consequently.

A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla stated that hospitals can not insist that the lady’s mom register a police grievance as a situation to obtain medical therapy.

“The very fact state of affairs is evident that relations of the petitioner’s daughter with the boy who can also be a minor, have been consensual. Neither the petitioner within the capability of a mum or dad nor the petitioner’s daughter say’s that she is a sufferer, and in reality she was acutely aware and conscious of her actions, therefore they don’t seem to be desirous of registering any police grievance underneath the provisions of the Safety of Cildren from Sexual Offences Act, 2012…Merely given that there isn’t a police grievance, the petitioner’s daughter can’t be denied medical support.”

The court docket was coping with a writ petition filed by the lady’s mom searching for entry to medical therapy which was denied to her as a result of requirement of submitting a police grievance.

The petitioner’s grievance was that medical services demanded a police complain

Formulate SOP For Medical Termination Of Being pregnant Past 24 Weeks To Stop Want For Court docket Intervention: Bombay Excessive Court docket To State

Case Title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 195

The Bombay Excessive Court docket directed the state authorities to formulate a Commonplace Working Process (SOP) inside two months to be adopted by all authorities hospitals and medical faculties within the state for medical termination of being pregnant (MTP) past 24 weeks.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Nitin W Sambre sitting at Nagpur directed the registration of a petition searching for permission for MTP as a separate PIL to forestall the necessity for court docket intervention in such issues.

“The realized Authorities Pleader is requested to not solely apprise the authorities involved about this order but in addition to make use of his good places of work to make sure that workable Commonplace Working Process is put in place and applied in order that nobody must journey to this Court docket for searching for any permission for termination of being pregnant, if the girl is entitled to take action underneath the provisions of the MTP Act, 1971 and MTP Guidelines, 2003.”

The Extra Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary of the Division of Public Well being, in addition to the Medical Training and Medicine Division, State of Maharashtra, have been impleaded as occasion respondents to the PIL.

The court docket handed these instructions whereas permitting a writ petition by a thirty-two weeks pregnant lady searching for permission for medical termination of being pregnant on account of fetal abnormalities.

No Order Handed On Rectification Software Filed By Assessee For Six Years: Bombay Excessive Court docket Directs Disciplinary Motion Towards AO

Case Title: Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue Tax

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 196

The Bombay Excessive Court docket directed the disciplinary motion in opposition to AO as no order has been handed on the rectification utility filed by the assessee for six years.

The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale noticed that the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue Tax (ACIT) Officer was duty-bound to go orders on the appliance, which has been pending for nearly 6 years, as an alternative of creating baseless statements within the affidavit in reply. Maybe ACIT thinks that she or he is just not accountable to any citizen of this nation. A duplicate of this order shall be positioned earlier than the PCCIT to take disciplinary motion in opposition to ACIT for dereliction of obligation.

Bombay Excessive Court docket Upholds Termination Of HPCL Workman Who Slapped Supervisor, Says Astounding That CGIT Did not Discover It Severe

Case Title: Hindustan Petroleum Company Ltd. v. Mavji Jethalal Rathod

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 197

Observing that assault on a superior is a grave type of misconduct warranting termination to take care of self-discipline within the office, the Bombay Excessive Court docket put aside the reinstatement of a Hindustan Petroleum workman who was terminated after he slapped his supervisor.

Justice Sandeep V Marne sharply criticized the Central Authorities Industrial Tribunal’s (CGIT) determination to reinstate the workman with 20 p.c again wages and seniority and as an alternative award a punishment of withholding of 1 increment.

“CGIT has arrived at a conclusion that the acts of insubordination and assault aren’t severe sufficient to inflict punishment of termination. The view taken by CGIT that act of assault on co-employee is just not severe is startling. Fee of assault on a co-employee is the gravest type of misconduct which a workman can commit. Removed from penalty stunning my acutely aware, truly the findings recorded by the realized Presiding Officer of CGIT are stunning”, the court docket said.

The Presiding Officer of CGIT thought of the act of the workman ‘not too severe to inflict the punishment of termination’ because it didn’t trigger any bodily harm. The court docket discovered the CGIT’s reasoning “stunning” and “astounding” and emphasised that such leniency may encourage related acts by different staff.

“The discovering recorded by the Presiding Officer of CGIT that solely when bodily harm is suffered by particular person, who’s assaulted, the penalty of discharge/termination could be imposed is completely unsustainable…if an worker slapping his superior in entrance of others is retained in service, the identical would encourage related acts by others. Slapping his superior by the workman is without doubt one of the gravest types of misconduct, which must be visited with penalty of discharge/termination.”

S.397 CrPC | FIR Will not Stand Quashed If Revision Court docket Units Apart Justice of the Peace’s Order For Police Investigation Into Cognizable Offence: Bombay HC Full Bench

Case Title: Arun P. Gidh v. Chandraprakash Singh and Ors.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 198

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held {that a} court docket in its revisional jurisdiction can not quash an FIR registered pursuant to the Justice of the Peace’s order to police underneath part 156(3) CrPC to analyze a cognizable offence.

A full bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere, Justice NJ Jamadar and Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh noticed that FIR is a statutory energy of the investigating company and wouldn’t stand quashed if the revision court docket units apart the Justice of the Peace’s order.

“registration of the FIR is just not inexorably consequential to the order handed by the Justice of the Peace underneath Part 156(3) of the Code. At the price of repetition, it have to be famous that the registration of the FIR by the police, upon a cognizable offence having been reported, is the statutory obligation of the police. As a precept, subsequently, we discover it tough to agree with the submission of Mr. Desai that after the order directing investigation underneath Part 156(3) is put aside, every little thing which follows should fall by.”

The court docket underscored that the facility to quash investigations or prosecutions lies throughout the realm of writ jurisdiction underneath the Structure or inherent powers underneath Part 482 of the CrPC, aimed toward stopping abuse of the authorized course of or guaranteeing justice.

The bigger bench held that revision underneath part 397 of CrPC is just not an efficacious treatment in opposition to an order of the Justice of the Peace directing investigation underneath Part 156(3) after the registration of an FIR. Nevertheless, the court docket emphasised that the treatment of revision wouldn’t turn out to be redundant as soon as the FIR is registered, and the revision court docket order would nonetheless have utility as excessive court docket can take it into consideration whereas contemplating writ petition for quashing the FIR.

Bombay Excessive Court docket Pulls Up Trial Decide For Overlooking Absence Of Essential Proof, Urges Judicial Academy To Handle Such Points Throughout Coaching

Case Title: Anand Narayan Sakpal v. State of Maharashtra

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 199

The Bombay Excessive Court docket pulled up the trial court docket for convicting a Postmaster for misappropriation overlooking the absence of documentary proof of registers and journals of the Publish Workplace essential to confirm the misappropriation.

Justice SM Modak, whereas setting apart the conviction, criticized the lackadaisical method of each the prosecution and the judiciary and emphasised the significance of seizing and producing related documentary proof throughout trial.

“Neither APP in-charge nor the trial Court docket Decide have been vigilant in taking applicable steps/instructions. They carried out trial with out registers. Trial Court docket mentioned proof and convicted the applicant by overlooking absence of vital piece of proof. It’s unusual even the Appellate Court docket neglected this reality and confirmed the conviction. That is blatant disregard to the accountability bestowed on the stakeholders.”

The court docket determined to carry this to the discover of the Maharashtra Judicial Academy (MJA) to deal with this concern, because it imparts coaching to judges.

“I deem it essential to carry this lackadaisical method of Police and Judges to the Joint Director, MJA. As a result of coaching is imparted to Judges. He can carry this reality to the discover of trial Court docket and Appellate Court docket Judges educated there. It’s anticipated from Joint Director, MJA to tell this Court docket in what method these observations got impact. Copy of this judgment could also be despatched to him.”

Very Grave Offence, No Bail Regardless of Delay In Trial: Bombay Excessive Court docket To Man Who Allegedly Murdered Neighbour To Pretend Personal Loss of life For Insurance coverage Cash

Case Title: Sumit Suresh Extra v. State of Maharashtra

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 200

The Bombay Excessive Court docket denied bail to a person who allegedly staged his personal dying by murdering his neighbour, with the intention to declare the good thing about his life insurance coverage value Rs. 1.5 Crores.

Justice Madhav J Jamdar discovered the alleged offence grave sufficient to disclaim bail regardless of a delay within the trial.

“The Applicant is incarcerated since about 4 years and a couple of months and subsequently Mr. Chavan, realized Counsel for the Applicant is right in contending that there’s a delay in conducting the trial. Nevertheless, as famous herein above, the offence could be very grave and severe. It’s a pre-planned crime. To avail the good thing about life insurance coverage coverage of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, an harmless particular person was killed to painting that the Accused No.1 had met with an accident and that within the stated accident, the automobile wherein Accused No.1 was travelling, caught fireplace and the stated automobile in addition to Accused No.1 bought burnt…Accordingly, the Bail Software is rejected.”

MCOCA Convicts Not Excluded Underneath 2006 Remission Coverage: Bombay Excessive Court docket Whereas Permitting Arun Gawli’s Early Launch

Case Title: Arun Gulab Gawli v. State of Maharashtra

Quotation: 201

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that life convicts underneath the Maharashtra Management of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) aren’t excluded from the revised remission coverage of 2006.

A division bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi sitting at Nagpur allowed untimely launch of gangster-turned-politician Arun Gawli convicted in 2012 underneath MCOCA observing –

“the petitioner is entitled to the advantages flowing from the remission coverage dated 10.01.2006, which was prevailing on the date of his conviction. We additionally maintain that by making use of the rule of ejusdem generis, convicts of MCOC Act can’t be excluded from availing the advantages of the stated coverage.”

Submitting Delayed Returns, Energy To Condone Delay Is Conferred On CBDT To Guarantee Substantial Justice; Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v. ACIT

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 202

Explaining the scope of powers u/s 119(2)(b) of the Revenue tax Act, the Bombay Excessive Court docket clarified that the legislature has conferred energy on the Principal Commissioner of Revenue Tax (respondent no.3) to condone the delay to allow the authorities to do substantive justice to the events by disposing the matter on deserves.

Therefore, the Excessive Court docket noticed that routinely passing the order with out appreciating the explanation why the provisions for condonation of delay has been offered within the statute itself, defeats the reason for justice.

A Division Bench of Justice Okay. R. Shriram and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale reiterated that “CBDT ought to take into accout, whereas contemplating an utility of this nature, that the facility to condone the delay has been conferred is to allow the authorities to do substantial justice to the events by disposing the issues on deserves and whereas contemplating these points, the authorities are anticipated to keep in mind that no applicant would stand to learn by lodging delayed returns”.

Prima Facie Rigorous Circumstances For Bail Will not Apply: Bombay Excessive Court docket Grants Bail To MCOCA Accused With 24 Antecedents Of Chain Snatching

Case Title: Dipak P. Mali v. State of Maharashtra

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 203

The Bombay Excessive Court docket granted bail to an alleged chain snatcher observing that rigorous circumstances for bail underneath the Maharashtra Management of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) wouldn’t apply when all his prison antecedents pertained to chain snatching.

Justice Madhav J Jamdar granted bail to 1 Dipak P Mali, alleged chief of a gang of chain snatchers in Pune observing –

“Though the provisions of the Maharashtra Management of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC”) have been invoked, all offences are of chain- snatching and subsequently, prima facie rigors of Part 21(4) of the MCOC is not going to apply.”

As per Part 21(4) of MCOCA, earlier than granting bail, the court docket needs to be happy that there are cheap grounds for believing that the accused is just not responsible of the alleged offence and isn’t prone to commit any offence whereas on bail.

Widow Nearing Retirement Age, Bombay Excessive Court docket Permits Son To Substitute Her In Compassionate Appointment Wait Record

Case Title: Durgadas s/o. Sunil Saindane v. State of Maharashtra

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 204

The Bombay Excessive Court docket allowed the substitution of a 55-year-old widow of a deceased worker by their 18-year-old son within the wait record for compassionate appointment, as she wouldn’t be entitled to any retiral advantages if given the appointment.

A division bench of Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice RM noticed that although the widow is eligible, it might be purposeless to grant her compassionate appointment for 4-5 years, as a result of she wouldn’t be entitled for any service or retiral advantages.

“Even when this Court docket was to grant compassionate appointment to the widow, being a category IV worker, she would retire on the age of 60 after placing in round 4- 5 years in employment. She wouldn’t even be entitled for pension and the second she will get compassionate appointment, current pension payable on account of the deceased husband’s service, would additionally cease”, the court docket noticed.

Bombay Excessive Court docket Refuses Filmmaker Ramesh Sippy’s Plea For Appointment Of Court docket Receiver In Property Dispute

Case Title: Ramesh Sippy v. Sunhil Ajit Sippy & Ors.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 205

The Bombay Excessive Court docket rejected an interim utility filed by filmmaker Ramesh Sippy in a property dispute regarding inheritance rights over varied property, together with a flat in South Mumbai, shares in Sippy Movies Pvt Ltd, and rights to 27 movies produced by the manufacturing home.

Justice Manish Pitale refused to grant interim reduction sought by Sippy, which included the appointment of a court docket receiver to handle the disputed property. The court docket discovered no substantial proof offered by Sippy to assist his apprehensions relating to the disposal of the flat by the defendants.

“There may be hardly any materials positioned on report on behalf of the plaintiff to indicate as to in what method flat 5/A is being handled by the defendant Nos.9 and 10, which may give rise to any apprehension on behalf of the plaintiff. No case is made out for appointment of Court docket Receiver in respect of the stated flat.”

Sippy claimed that the manufacturing firm, Sippy Movies Pvt Ltd, and its administrators have been illegally having fun with the property of his deceased dad and mom.

S. 50 PMLA | ED Cannot Document Assertion At Evening By Depriving Particular person’s Proper To Sleep; Leads To Impairment Of Cognitive Abilities: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Ram Kotumal Issrani v. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 206

The Bombay Excessive Court docket criticized the Enforcement Directorate for its follow of recording statements of individuals summoned underneath part 50 of PMLA late at night time, emphasizing the fitting to sleep as a fundamental human requirement.

“The `proper to sleep”https://insurance coverage.einnews.com/”proper to blink’ is a fundamental human requirement, inasmuch as, non-providing of the identical, violates an individual’s human rights. It impacts an individual’s well being, could impair his psychological colleges, cognitive expertise and so forth. The stated particular person, so summoned, can’t be disadvantaged of his fundamental human proper i.e. proper to sleep, by the company, past an affordable time. Statements should essentially be recorded throughout earthly hours and never within the night time when the particular person’s cognitive expertise could also be impaired”, the court docket noticed.

A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande directed the ED to concern tips for recording statements underneath Part 50 of the PMLA, guaranteeing respect for people’ fundamental human rights.

“Consent is immaterial. Recording of assertion, at unearthly hours, positively ends in deprivation of an individual’s sleep, a fundamental human proper of a person. We disapprove this follow. Thus, we deem it applicable to direct the ED to concern a round/instructions, as to the timings, for recording of statements, when summons underneath Part 50 of the PMLA are issued, having regard to what’s noticed by us hereinabove.”

Jobs, Admissions Topic To Consequence Of Pleas Difficult Maharashtra Reservation Act: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Bhausaheb Bhujangrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 207

The Bombay Excessive Court docket stated that any functions for admissions to academic programs or recruitment to authorities jobs availing the Maratha quota can be topic to additional HC orders on petitions difficult the reservation.

A full bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice GS Kulkarni, and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla adjourned to June 13, 2024 a batch of PILs and writ petitions difficult the reservation.

“if any functions are made pursuant to the commercial dated ninth February 2024 for admission to undergraduate drugs programs on the idea of [NEET (UG)], 2024 or pursuant to another such commercial for making admission to another academic programs the place candidates search advantage of the impugned enactment, participation of such candidates/candidates shall be topic to additional orders which can be handed in these petitions”, stated the court docket.

Equally, any commercials made post-enactment for recruitment in public employment would even be topic to additional court docket orders, the court docket held.

“in case any commercial has been made after promulgation of the impugned enactment for making any recruitment/appointment in public employment in reference to the affairs of the State, different State instrumentalities and State public undertakings/enterprises, the identical shall even be topic to additional orders which can be handed in these petitions”

The court docket directed the authorities to tell all taking part candidates of this order.

“Actually The Excessive Court docket Ought to Not Scrutinise An Order Of The ITSC As An Appellate Court docket,” Says Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Commissioner of Revenue Tax Central v. Revenue Tax Settlement Fee

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 208

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that interference with the orders of the Revenue Tax Settlement Fee (ITSC) needs to be prevented, protecting in thoughts the legislative intent. The scope of interference could be very slim, and definitely the Excessive Court docket shouldn’t scrutinize an order of the ITSC as an appellate court docket. Unsettling reasoned orders from the ITSC could erode the arrogance of assessees. The bigger image needs to be saved in thoughts.

The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale noticed that the ITSC was entitled to train discretion and has rightly exercised its discretion. The bench discovered that nothing was unsuitable with the judicial decision-making technique of the Fee. When the division depends on the seized information for estimating the undisclosed earnings, we see no purpose why the expenditure said therein needs to be disbelieved.

Offers False Impression That It Is Official Mr. Bean Theme Park: Bombay Excessive Court docket Quickly Restrains Trampoline Park From Utilizing Trademark

Case Title: Tiger Side Children & Household Restricted v. Mr. Bean Trampoline Park / Mr. Been Trampoline Park

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 209

The Bombay Excessive Court docket granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining a Trampoline Park in Lonavla from utilizing the trademark, art work, machine or character of Mr. Bean from the favored comedy sequence which was first broadcasted in January 1990.

The court docket in contrast the registered Mr. Bean Trademark with the allegedly infringing trademark of the trampoline park and concluded –

“On the comparability, indicated above, I need to word that this can be a good case of false endorsement the place the impression given to the shoppers is that the trampoline park of the Defendant is allowed or is an official theme park of the Plaintiff, which isn’t the case. Additional, the Defendant proceed to make use of the Impugned Marks regardless of being put to note and its dishonest intention is writ at massive…if the Defendant is just not restrained by a short lived injunction, it should proceed with its nefarious actions leading to uncalculated losses, which will not be able to being compensated by way of cash.”

The court docket restrained it from conducting any industrial exercise utilizing any mark containing the phrases ‘Mr. Bean”https://insurance coverage.einnews.com/”Mr. Been’ and/or another trademark, art work, and character deceptively just like the Plaintiff’s well-known registered stated Trademark.

Bombay Excessive Court docket Quashes SCN Demanding GST On Ocean Freight On Transportation Of Items From Exterior India

Case Title: M/s. Agarwal Coal Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Help. Commissioner of State Tax.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 210

The Bombay Excessive Court docket quashed the present trigger discover (SCN) demanding GST on ocean freight on transportation of products from outdoors India.

The bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla relied on the choice of the Supreme Court docket within the case of Mohit Minerals and noticed that the decision applies to each free on board (FOB) and sum of price, insurance coverage, and freight (CIF) contracts.

Investigative Journalism Does not Take pleasure in Particular Safety; Public Curiosity Will not Allow Publication To Decrease Down Status With out Any Truthfulness: Bombay HC

Case Title: Khanjan Jagadishkumar Thakkar v. Waahiid Ali Khan & Ors

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 211

Emphasizing the significance of balancing freedom of the press with a person’s proper to repute, the Bombay Excessive Court docket noticed that whereas investigative journalism serves a significant position in society, it can not come on the expense of defaming people.

“As a Journalist, although he could also be obligation certain to appraise the general public, of the information and information which is of their curiosity, it positively can’t be tried at the price of defaming the Plaintiff. The liberty of press, which is being advanced as a species of speech, positively should be balanced in opposition to a proper, which a person has to his repute“, the court docket stated.

Justice Bharati Dangre stated that the declare of getting uncovered many scams doesn’t authorize a journalist to publish one thing which can lead to hatred, ridicule or contempt of the plaintiff merely on the pretext that it’s within the public curiosity.

“Investigative Journalism positively doesn’t take pleasure in any particular safety and the umbrage of public curiosity positively don’t allow a publication, which might quantity to reducing down the repute of any particular person, in any method notably with out justifying the publication on the idea of its truthfulness”, the court docket held.

The court docket, whereas permitting an interim utility in a defamation go well with searching for a short lived injunction in opposition to an investigative journalist throughout the pendency of the go well with, directed him to take away varied prima facie defamatory posts from YouTube, X (previously Twitter) and Fb.

Refund Extra Than 10% Of Tax As Decided On Common Evaluation, CEAT Entitled To Curiosity On Refund Of Rs. 5.24 Cr.: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Ceat Restricted v. Commissioner of Revenue Tax

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 212

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that Ceat Restricted is entitled to curiosity on a refund of Rs. 5.24 crore because the refund is greater than 10% of tax as decided on common evaluation.

The bench of Justice Okay. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale noticed that the phrases “quantity of refund” should imply the entire of the refund of Rs. 5,24,29,950 and never a synthetic break up as canvassed by the Division. Subsequently, no matter what the phrases “common evaluation” imply, the proviso wouldn’t be enticing.

[Cybercrime] IPC Can Concurrently Be Invoked If Sections Underneath IT Act Do not Handle All Substances Of Offence: Bombay Excessive Court docket Full Bench

Case Title: Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 213

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that whereas the Info Expertise Act, 2000 is a particular Act for addressing cybercrimes and has an overriding impact, it doesn’t preclude the appliance of IPC in circumstances the place the offences aren’t adequately addressed underneath the IT Act

The court docket held that part 43 (penalty for harm to laptop) learn with part 66 (fraudulently or dishonestly damaging laptop), and part 72 (breach of confidentiality and privateness) of the IT Act don’t embody all elements of the offences of dishonest and prison breach of belief, as outlined underneath the IPC.

Thus, the court docket held that the aforementioned offences underneath IPC could be concurrently invoked with the sections of the IT Act in opposition to an accused in respect of the identical act.

A full bench of Justice Mangesh S Patil, Justice RG Avachat and Justice Shailesh P Brahme was answering a reference by a division bench relating to the interaction of provisions underneath the IT Act and IPC.

The court docket held that neither Part 43 nor Part 66 covers conditions the place the acts are accomplished by inducing the proprietor or particular person in command of a pc system by dishonest, as required underneath IPC sections 415 and 420.

Evaluating the weather of offences underneath Part 72 of the IT Act with these underneath IPC Sections 406, 408, and 409 in gentle of IPC Sections 403 and 405, the court docket concluded that Part 72 doesn’t embody conditions the place breaches of confidentiality are undertaken for private achieve or the place entry is secured dishonestly. As a substitute, such actions would fall underneath the purview of IPC Sections 406, 408, and 409, it held.

Additional, the court docket held that Sections 43 and 72 of the IT Act don’t cowl prison acts accomplished with widespread intention.

Bombay Excessive Court docket Suspends Life Sentence, Grants Bail To Man Convicted For Beheading Girlfriend’s Cousin

Case Title: Nijam Asgar Hashmi v. State of Maharashtra

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 214

The Bombay Excessive Court docket suspended a life sentence and granted bail to a person convicted of murdering the cousin of his girlfriend by beheading him.

A division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Shyam C Chandak prima facie rejected the prosecution’s case to the extent that the homicide weapon had human blood regardless of being present in a spot full of water.

“You will need to word right here that, although the weapon used within the current crime was recovered from a ditch/pond in presence of P.W.2, from a spot full of water upto knee stage, the Chemical Analyser Report mentions that, human blood was discovered on the stated weapon. Prima facie we’re unable to simply accept the case of the prosecution to that extent.”

Can A Part 29A Software Be Filed In The Industrial Court docket Or Solely In The Excessive Court docket? Single Bench Of Bombay Excessive Court docket Refers The Situation To Bigger Bench

Case Title: Sheela Chowgule v. Vijay V. Chowgule

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 215

The Excessive Court docket of Bombay (Goa Bench) referred the problem of maintainability of a Part 29A utility searching for extension of the arbitration earlier than the Industrial Court docket to a bigger bench in view of conflicting views by two co-ordinate benches of the Excessive Court docket.

The Bench of Justice Bharat P. Deshpande noticed that the since Part 29A of the A&C Act not simply entails extension of the mandate of the arbitrator, but in addition questions referring to the substitution, termination and discount of the charges of the arbitrator, subsequently, the facility underneath Part 29A can solely lie with the Excessive Court docket in view of the appointing energy given to it underneath Part 11 of the Act.

Nevertheless, the Court docket remarked that since conflicting selections are taken by the 2 co-ordinate benches, Judicial Propriety calls for that the problem have to be referred to a bigger bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

Reception Held In Mumbai Not Half Of Marriage Ritual: Excessive Court docket Declines Mumbai Household Court docket’s Jurisdiction Over Husband’s Divorce Plea

Case Title: Shikha Lodha v. Suketu Shah and Anr.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 216

Observing that reception cannot be thought of a part of the wedding ritual, the Bombay Excessive Court docket held that the household court docket in Mumbai had no jurisdiction over a divorce case simply because the couple had the marriage reception in Mumbai and resided there for a couple of days.

“There isn’t a dispute between the events that each one the rituals of the wedding passed off on 7 June, 2015 at Jodhpur, Rajasthan. In Mumbai, there was solely a marriage reception on 11 June, 2015. In my opinion, there cannot be any doubt {that a} wedding ceremony reception cannot be referred to as as part of marriage ritual”, the court docket noticed.

Justice Rajesh S Patil allowed a girl’s utility difficult Household Court docket Mumbai’s jurisdiction over her husband’s divorce petition observing that the couple’s precise final place of joint residence is within the US.

“Sec.19(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, nowhere mentions “final residing collectively in India”. In my opinion such phrases “in India”, cannot be learn within the sub-section (iii) of 19”, the court docket noticed.

Though Adultery Is Grounds For Divorce, It Cannot Be A Floor To Deny Kid’s Custody: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 217

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that adultery is a floor for divorce however can’t be a floor for denying custody of a kid.

Justice Rajesh Patil dismissed a writ petition filed by son of a former legislator searching for custody of his nine-year-old daughter from his estranged spouse on grounds of adultery.

“Adultery is in any case a floor for divorce, nonetheless the identical cannot be a floor for not granting custody”, the court docket noticed.

The court docket relied on a January 2024 judgement by the Delhi Excessive Court docket, which granted custody to a spouse regardless of allegations of her extramarital affair being confirmed.

Director Basic Of Transport’s 2022 Order For Certification Of Lodging Barges Not Relevant To Ships Registered Underneath Coastal Vessels Act: Bombay HC

Case Title: Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 218

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that the 2022 order of the Director Basic of Transport for certification of lodging barges doesn’t apply to vessels which aren’t Indian ships registered underneath the Service provider Transport Act, of 1858.

A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla briefly stayed orders of the Directorate Basic of Transport to detain three of the petitioner’s non-self-propelled lodging barges registered underneath the Coastal Vessels Act, of 1838.

The impugned detention orders dated Might 8, 2023, Might 22, 2023, and June 3, 2023, have been issued on account of alleged non-compliance with a common order issued by the Director Basic of Transport, Mumbai (DGS) on October 20, 2022. This order laid down norms for the certification of offshore vessels and lodging barges working within the Indian Unique Financial Zone, imposing further circumstances such because the set up of lifeboats.

“The measures as sought to be imposed on the petitioner as a consequence of the final route as issued underneath the impugned order dated 20 October 2022 could also be within the bigger curiosity of the vessels and for advantage of the individuals deployed thereon, nonetheless, when the impugned order is sought to be imposed on the petitioner, it may be imposed provided that the legislation would allow the applicability of the stated order to the class of vessels belonging to the petitioner and never in any other case”, the court docket noticed.

Appointment Of Arbitrators From A Slender Panel Of 4 Arbitrators Is Violative Of Part 12(5) Of The A&C Act: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: NP Enterprises v. Basic Supervisor, Western Railway

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 219

The Excessive Court docket of Bombay held that appointment of arbitrator from a slim panel of 4 arbitrators is violative of Part 12(5) of the A&C Act. It held that such follow of making ready slim panels restricts free alternative and provides rise to suspicion that favourites are chosen.

The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that independence and impartiality of arbitrators is a trademark of arbitration and the rule in opposition to bias is without doubt one of the elementary ideas of pure justice, which is relevant with equal drive in all quasi-judicial proceedings.

Bombay Excessive Court docket Quashes Case Towards Raj Thackeray For Abetting Violence And Public Property Injury In 2008

Case Title: Swararaj @ Raj Shrikant Thackeray v. State of Maharashtra

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 220

The Bombay Excessive Court docket quashed a prison case in opposition to Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray for alleged abetment of violence and public property harm arising out of a stone pelting incident in 2008.

Justice Nitin B Suryawanshi of the Aurangabad bench put aside decrease court docket orders refusing to discharge Thackeray in a case involving MNS supporters allegedly attacking a state transport (ST) bus throughout a protest demanding his launch from custody.

“In absence of any materials on report to indicate instigation on the a part of petitioner within the current crime, cost in opposition to petitioner is groundless and Trial Court docket in addition to Classes Court docket have failed to understand this very important facet and have erred in rejecting prayer of petitioner for discharge. The impugned orders are subsequently unsustainable in legislation and information of the case”, the court docket held.

Thackeray was going through prices underneath sections 143, 341, 336, 337, 427, 109 of IPC, Part 3 and 4 of Prevention of Injury to the Public Property Act, part 135 of Bombay Police Act and part 7 of Prison Legislation Modification Act. These prices stemmed from an incident on October 21, 2008, the place he allegedly incited violence leading to harm to public property.

Energy Of Basic Supervisor Of Employer To Affirm Nomination Of Arbitrator By The Contractor Runs Opposite To Rules Of Impartiality And Independence: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Telex Promoting Pvt Ltd v. Central Railway

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 221

The Excessive Court docket of Bombay held that the facility of Basic Supervisor of the employer to substantiate nomination of arbitrator by the Contractor runs opposite to ideas of impartiality and independence. It held that nomination by a celebration of its arbitrator can’t be topic to approval by the opposite occasion.

The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that for an appointment of arbitrator from a panel unilaterally ready by a celebration, it have to be broad and numerous to permit free option to the opposite occasion and any deviation can be hit by Part 12(5) of the Act.

Arbitrator’s Mandate Would Not Be Terminated When The Delays In Arbitral Proceedings Are Not Attributable To It: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Glencore India Pvt Ltd v. Amma Strains Restricted

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 222

The Excessive Court docket of Bombay held that an arbitrator’s mandate wouldn’t terminate when the proceedings aren’t accomplished inside timelines agreed by the events, if the delays within the conduct of the proceedings are attributable to the occasion searching for termination of the mandate.

The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that usually, in an arbitration not ruled by Part 29A, the arbitrator’s mandate expires upon its failure to conclude the proceedings throughout the time interval agreed by the events, nonetheless, it might not maintain true when the tribunal acted expeditiously and the delays in proceedings have been on account of fault of the events themselves.

Bombay Excessive Court docket Strikes Down State’s Round Imposing Extra Circumstances For Registration Of Govt Worker Autos Underneath “BH Sequence”

Case Title: Mahendra Bansilal Patil v. Commissioner of Transport & Ors.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 223

The Bombay Excessive Court docket quashed the State authorities’s round offering further circumstances for registration of automobiles belonging to authorities staff underneath the “BH sequence”.

A division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla allowed a writ petition filed by Civil Decide Mahendra Bansilal Patil difficult the Commissioner of Transport’s refusal to register his newly bought motorized vehicle underneath the ‘BH sequence’.

“within the absence of any energy conferred on the Commissioner to tremendous impose circumstances on any applicant searching for registration of the automobiles, which aren’t circumstances underneath Central Guidelines (Supra), the Commissioner couldn’t have issued such round”, the court docket noticed.

Tata Metal Entitled To Deal with Contribution Of Rs. 212.52 Crores To CAF As Income Expenditure: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: PCIT v. Tata Metal

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 224

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that Tata Metal is entitled to deal with the contribution of Rs. 212.52 crores to the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) as income expenditure.

The bench of Justice Okay. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale relied on the choice of the Bombay Excessive Court docket (Goa Bench) within the case of The Commissioner of Revenue Tax v. Dr. Prafulla R. Hede, and one other has accepted {that a} contribution to CAF shall be income expenditure and never capital in nature.

Error On Half Of Auditor Ought to Be Accepted As Affordable Trigger Proven By Belief Administration For Delay Condonation: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Sham v. Walve

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 225

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that the error on the a part of the auditor can’t be rejected however needs to be accepted as an affordable trigger proven by the belief administration.

The bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale noticed that an assessee, a public charitable belief with nearly over thirty years, which in any other case satisfies the situation for availing exemption, shouldn’t be denied the identical merely on the bar of limitation, particularly when the legislature has conferred vast discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities involved.

Judges Should Not Tarnish Picture Of Judiciary: Bombay Excessive Court docket Upholds Removing Of Civil Decide Who Arrived At Judicial Academy In Inebriated State

Case Title: Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak v. Registrar Basic, Bombay Excessive Court docket and Anr.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 226

The Bombay Excessive Court docket upheld state authorities’s order eradicating civil choose Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak from judicial service on account of unilateral adjournment of circumstances, failure to observe court docket timings and arriving inebriated.

A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar & Justice Jitendra Jain noticed –

“It’s a universally accepted norm that Judges and Judicial Officers should act with dignity and should not take pleasure in a conduct or behaviour which is prone to have an effect on the picture of judiciary or which unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. If the Members of the judiciary take pleasure in a behaviour which is blameworthy or which is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, the Writ Courts aren’t anticipated to intervene and grant reduction to such a Judicial Officer.”

The court docket dismissed Pathak’s writ petition difficult an order dated January 14, issued by the Secretary, Legislation and Judiciary Division, Mumbai, which directed Pathak’s elimination from service.

Undisputed Employer-Worker Relationship Should For Proceedings Underneath Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970: Bombay Excessive Court docket Set Asides Industrial Court docket Order

Case Title: Indus Towers Restricted v. Rajendra Patil (Yedravkar) and Anr.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 227

The Bombay Excessive Court docket single bench of Justice Amit Borkar held that for the proceedings underneath the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, the connection between employer-employee needs to be undisputed. The court docket held that in absence of such a relationship, the labour court docket or the commercial court docket does not have any jurisdiction to cope with the matter falling underneath the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.

Prolonged Interval Of Absence With out Depart Documentation Is Unjustified, Bombay Excessive Court docket Reduces Again Wages Of MSRTC’s Worker

Case Title: Maharashtra State Street Transport Company v. Dattatraya Ganpat Bankhele

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 228

The Excessive Court docket of Bombay single bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that prolonged durations of absence from obligation with out correct go away documentation are unjustified, whatever the plausibility of the explanation behind the absence.

The Excessive Court docket acknowledged that the Labour Court docket’s determination of reinstatement of the absent worker with 25% again wages couldn’t be reversed because the employer did not problem it. Nevertheless, the Industrial Court docket was unjustified to extend the again wages to 100%, within the absence of concrete causes.

Abandonment Of Service Wants To Be Established By Conduction Of Enquiry: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Bhushan Industries v. Lohasingh Ramavadh Yadav

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 229

A single choose bench of the Bombay Excessive Court docket comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne whereas deciding a Writ Petition within the case of Bhushan Industries vs Lohasingh Ramavadh Yadav held that abandonment of service is a query of incontrovertible fact that must be established by conduction of an enquiry.

If the Petitioner truly believed that the Respondent has deserted his companies, no less than a present trigger discover must have been issued to the Respondent. Since correspondence was on going between the Petitioner and the Respondent, it was attainable for the Petitioner to conduct an enquiry accusing the Respondent of absconding from his duties, the court docket noticed.

Least Believable For Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin To Suppose Of Appointing Successor Instantly After Assuming Workplace In 1965: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Taher Fakhruddin Saheb v. Mufaddal Burhanuddin Saifuddin

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 230

The Bombay Excessive Court docket noticed that Taher Fakhruddin, challenger to his uncle Mufaddal Saiffuddin’s place because the Dai al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohra neighborhood, accepted obscure indications for his personal nass, however dismissed concrete proof for the nass conferred on Syedna Saifuddin.

The court docket discovered it “least believable” that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, the 52nd Dai, instantly considered appointing his successor upon assuming workplace in 1965 at 51 years of age, as claimed by Fakhruddin.

The court docket held that Fakhruddin’s go well with failed on all counts of chance, likelihood, steadiness, preponderance, prudence.

The court docket emphasised that the go well with is a civil declare, distinct from issues of religion, and it’s deciding not who ought to extra appropriately be the Dai, however merely who proved, in line with civil legislation, his declare of getting correctly appointed the 53^rd Dai.

The court docket noticed that it isn’t inside its purview to conclusively decide non secular doctrine, and refused to affirmatively or prescriptively elucidate the necessities of a sound nass. As a substitute, it assessed whether or not Fakhruddin substantiated his declare relating to the necessities of a Nass. The court docket held that Fakhruddin did not show his case on necessities of a sound “nass”.

Contractors Difficult Tender Circumstances Through PIL Pollute Purity Of The Stream Of Public Curiosity Litigation: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Nilesh Chandrakant Kamble v. MMRDA Govt of Maharashtra & Ors.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 231

The Bombay Excessive Court docket noticed that allowing contractors to file PILs difficult tender circumstances is a sheer abuse of technique of the court docket, and “pollutes purity of the stream of PIL”.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Physician dismissed a PIL by a contractor in opposition to a young issued by Mumbai Metropolitan Area Improvement Authority (MMRDA), and imposed prices of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner.

“Nevertheless, allowing a contractor to file a PIL petition difficult the circumstances of a young, in our opinion, is nothing however a sheer abuse of technique of Court docket and an effort to pollute the purity of the stream of public curiosity litigation. The petitioner has himself said within the petition that he’s engaged in the same enterprise as talked about within the topic tender. Accordingly, this petition can’t be permitted to be entertained as a PIL petition.”

The court docket opined that the petition, purportedly filed in public curiosity, was truly filed with indirect motives. The petitioner, claiming to be a social employee engaged in the same enterprise as talked about within the tender, claimed to be aggrieved by sure circumstances of the topic tender.

‘Sordid State Of Affairs’: Bombay Excessive Court docket Orders SP To Personally Look Into Rape Probe After Noting IO Might Have Ulterior Intentions

Case Title: XYZ v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 232

The Bombay Excessive Court docket ordered the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon to personally look into an investigation right into a rape case after noting that the investigating officer (IO) could have some ulterior intentions contemplating his unresponsiveness.

A division bench of Justice Mangesh S Patil and Justice Shailesh P Brahme famous that regardless of promptly reporting to the police, the offence underneath Part 376 was added later within the FIR for causes finest identified to the IO.

The court docket famous a “sordid state of affairs,” observing that regardless of a robust motive, medical proof, and witness statements according to the allegations within the FIR, the prosecutor didn’t have directions on the way to proceed.

The court docket directed the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, to take applicable steps together with change in IO after totally inspecting all points together with the cost sheet. The court docket directed the appointment of a girl police officer of not lower than the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to steer the inquiry.

“Sturdy-Arm Techniques”: Bombay Excessive Court docket Says Public Sector Banks Cannot Request Look Out Circulars Towards Defaulters, Quashes LOCs

Case Title: Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India and Ors.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 233

The Bombay Excessive Court docket noticed that Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued by Ministry of Residence Affairs (MHA) in opposition to mortgage defaulters on the behest of public sector banks (PSBs) are strong-arm ways to bypass authorized processes and violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Structure.

“The LOCs boil right down to nothing however a strong-arm tactic to bypass or leapfrog what PSBs clearly see as inconveniences and irritants — the courts of legislation”, the court docket stated.

A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Madhav J Jamdar struck down the LOCs in addition to the provisions of governing Workplace Memoranda (OMs) that empowered PSBs to hunt LOCs in opposition to mortgage defaulters.

The court docket held that the fitting to journey overseas, a part of the basic proper to life underneath Article 21 of the Structure can’t be curtailed by an government motion with none governing statute or controlling statutory provision.

“For what’s being instructed is that (a) there isn’t a controlling statute; subsequently (b) government motion should suffice, and consequently (c) mere government motion can infringe an Article 21 elementary proper. That’s the inevitable consequence of this argument, and it merely can’t be accepted”, the court docket stated, rejecting Union of India’s argument.

The court docket rejected arguments of wider public curiosity justifying LOCs. “No quantity of ‘public curiosity’ can substitute for a ‘process established by legislation’, i.e., by a statute, statutory rule or statutory regulation within the matter of deprivation of the fitting to life and private liberty assured underneath Article 21 of the Structure of India”, the court docket held.

Guarantee Efficient Implementation Of Legislation Towards Guide Scavenging: Bombay Excessive Court docket To State

Case Title: Shramik Janata Sangh and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 234

The Bombay Excessive Court docket referred to as for data from the Municipal Companies of Better Mumbai, Thane, Kalyan-Dombivali, and Mira-Bhayander on steps taken for efficient implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Guide Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.

These Municipal Companies must furnish the knowledge within the first part of gathering data from your complete state.

The reply affidavit should state whether or not State Monitoring Committee, Vigilance Committees, State Degree Survey Committee, District Degree Survey Committee and Sub Divisional Committee at Divisional Degree, have been constituted and their composition. If the committees aren’t constituted, the affidavit has to state what steps have been taken to type the committees. The affidavit additionally has to state the steps taken for identification and rehabilitation of handbook scavengers, and any schemes applied by the native authorities.

A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice MM Sathaye noticed –

“Step one that must be taken to deal with the broader concern, is to make sure that the statutory authorities constituted underneath the Act of 2013 are established and are purposeful and have the requisite manpower and needed administrative setup.”

The court docket was coping with a writ petition filed Shramik Janata Sangh, an affiliation working for handbook scavengers and searching for compensation for the household of an individual who died whereas handbook scavenging.

Reassessment Cannot Be Primarily based On Causes Borrowed From Different Dept. Or Justice M.B. Shah Fee Report: Bombay Excessive Court docket

Case Title: Balaji Mines And Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue Tax

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 235

The Bombay Excessive Court docket held that the explanations for reopening clearly present that the assessing officer, besides borrowing the knowledge from the third report of the Justice M.B. Shah Fee, did not report independently to his personal satisfaction any purpose in order to direct the reopening of the evaluation.

The bench of Justice Bharat P. Deshpande and Justice Valmiki Menezes didn’t see any purpose for independently forming opinions by the Assessing Officer, other than what was borrowed from the Justice M.B. Shah Fee report. Thus, causes that would not have any utility to the thoughts or any impartial materials or purpose to consider can’t be construed as authorized causes for re-opening the evaluation.

Phrases Fall Quick To Describe Affect Of Ordeal On Sufferer: Bombay Excessive Court docket Denies Bail To Neighbour Accused Of Sexually Abusing Little one For 9 Yrs

Case Title: Mehraj @ Meraj Kaddan Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 236

The Bombay Excessive Court docket denied bail to a person accused of repeatedly sexually abusing a baby over a interval of 9 years observing that his “horrible, appalling and obnoxious” crime prompted a lot trauma to the kid that she has turn out to be a nymphomaniac.

In his order, Justice Prithviraj Okay Chavan reproduced verbatim 27 handwritten pages within the sufferer’s pocket book narrating repeated sexual abuse and threats by her neighbour from when she was an 8-year-old youngster finding out in 4th customary until she attained the age of seventeen. The sufferer additionally described feeling disgrace, having tried suicide, and getting hooked on intercourse and smoking to manage lust consequently.

The court docket noticed that the sufferer had turn out to be routine to sexual activity as a result of trauma of the abuse by the accused.

“This isn’t in any respect a match case to confess the applicant to bail. To take action would tantamount to additional irritate and fester the injuries of the sufferer that are nonetheless contemporary in her thoughts, physique and soul. Aside from these points, trying to the character and propensity of the applicant, chance of repeating related offence can’t be dominated out. It’s fairly attainable that in case of his launch, the applicant could threaten and coerce the sufferer and her dad and mom”, the court docket held.

The court docket highlighted that youngsters are straightforward targets as they’re simply threatened and are much less prone to converse out in regards to the abuse.

In gentle of the heinous nature of the crimes and the potential risk posed by the applicant, the court docket deemed it inappropriate to grant bail. It directed the Trial Court docket to expedite the trial proceedings with out pointless delays.