Bombay High Court
Bank Guarantee Which Expired Almost Ten Years Before CIRP Was Initiated, Cannot Be Enforced: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court stated that expired bank guarantee can't be enforced post CIRP (corporate insolvency resolution process). Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that, “The argument that a personal guarantee survives the CIRP does not apply in the case because the guarantee had expired even before the CIRP. During the validity period of the guarantee, admittedly, no...
Bombay HC Issues Notice On Plea By Same-Sex Couple Seeking Inclusion Under Definition Of 'Spouse' For Tax Exemption U/s 56(2)(x) Of IT Act
The Bombay High Court has issued a notice to the Attorney General of India on a petition filed by a 'same sex couple' challenging the constitutional validity of Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax (IT) Act, which grants exemption from tax on gifts between heterosexual couples. A division bench Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla has sought to know the stance of the Union Government on the petition filed by Payio Ashiho and his partner Vivek Divan, both of whom have urged the...
MV Act | 'Accident' Includes Sudden Slipping, Involvement Of Another Vehicle Not Necessary For Claiming Compensation: Bombay High Court
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court held that involvement of another vehicle for causing an accident is not necessary and a mere skidding or slipping of the motorcycle too can amount to an 'accident' making the victims entitled to compensation under Motor Vehicles Act. Noting that term accident was not defined under the Act and would include any sudden event harming a person, the high court granted compensation of Rs. 7,82,800 with @7.5% interest per annum to the kin of a woman...
Bombay HC Quashes Magistrate's Order Issuing Notice To HDFC MD Sashidhar Jagdishan Without Verifying Lilavati Hospital's Complaint Against Him
In an order granting relief to HDFC Bank's Managing Director, Sashidhar Jagdishan, the Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate issuing notice to him in a private complaint lodged against him at the behest of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust.Notably, the complainant Trust runs the famous Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai. In its FIR, the Trust has accused Jagdishan of accepting a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore from erstwhile Trustee Chetan Mehta, for giving him...
Business Advance Granted To Shareholder Not Utilised For Company Work Will Be Treated As Deemed Dividend Under Income Tax Act: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court has held that where a company grants an advance to one of its shareholders and such advance is not demonstrated to have been utilised for the business of the company, the amount would be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court declined to interfere with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had upheld the addition of such advances as a deemed dividend.A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and...
Bombay HC Judge Refuses To Recuse From Cases Over 'Scurrilous' Bribery Claims Against 2 Sitting Judges, Including Himself; Imposes ₹50K Cost
Justice Milind Jadhav of the Bombay High Court last week refused to recuse himself from hearing a set of writ petitions filed in 2016, in which the petitioner levelled serious allegations of corruption, bribery and bias against two sitting Judges of the HC, including Justice Jadhav himself. Dismissing an interim application seeking his recusal from the matters, Justice...
No Sales Tax On HDPE Bags Used To Pack Cement When Sold Separately: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court stated that no sales tax can be levied on HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) bags at cement rate when sold separately. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain were addressing the issue of whether there is an express and independent contract on the sale of HDPE bags in which cement is packed. “HDPE bags used to pack the cement were a distinct commodity with its...
Concurrent Proceedings Under MCOCA Not Sufficient Explanation For Delay In Trial Under SC/ST Act: Bombay High Court Grants Bail
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has held that pendency of a trial under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act) is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to keep another trial in abeyance, and prolonged custody without progress in trial amounts to a violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.A bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke...
'Previous Decisions Taken By Gram Panchayat Cannot Be Cancelled Merely Due To Change In Body Of Representatives': Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has held that a subsequent change in the elected body of a Grampanchayat does not, by itself, justify the cancellation of decisions or resolutions passed by its earlier body. Such an approach would undermine the stability of local administration and is contrary to the purpose of Panchayati Raj institutions.A Division Bench of Justice Smt. M. S. Jawalkar...
Cops Must Discharge Power With Accountability, Not On Apprehensions: Bombay High Court Declares Alleged PFI Member's Arrest 'Illegal'
The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court while declaring 'illegal' the arrest of a sitting Councillor of a local body for being an alleged member of the Popular Front of India (PFI), recently held that the police cannot arrest a person under section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) merely on the apprehension that the said person may indulge in illegal activities in future and that there...
Centre Notifies Appointment Of 3 Advocates As Bombay High Court Judges
The Central Government has notified the appointment of three advocates as the Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court.They are :1. Ajit Bhagwanrao Kadethankar2. Sushil Manohar Ghodeswar3. Ms. Aarti Arun Sathe.The Supreme Court Collegium had recommended their elevation on July 28. The recommendation to appoint Aarti Sathe had created a controversy as she was earlier a BJP...
[RDB Act] Bombay High Court Upholds Transfer Of Recovery Suit From Commercial Court To DRT, Says S.31 Must Be Given Purposive Interpretation
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) must be given a purposive interpretation to ensure that recovery proceedings by banks fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), even if the suit was not originally within its jurisdiction at the time of filing. The Court ruled that when a non-banking...