(2023) 1 HCC (All)
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 21 — Public servant— FIR lodged against accused for collusion in clearing of pending bills in exchange for illegal gratification and Charge-sheet stated that accused performed public duties— Held, all persons remunerated by fees or commission for performance of any public duty by government are “public servants”, whether appointed by government or not—Applicant is a public servant for the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he is being rightly prosecuted for commission of offences under the Act, [Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2023) 1 HCC (All) 335]
Labour Law—Unfair Labour Practice—The petitioner alleged that the Company had adopted “unfair labour practices” under Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Held, petition dismissed, holding that automatic cessation of services rendered by the petitioner does not fall within the definition of ‘retrenchment’ and doesn’t amount to unfair labour practices, [Dinesh Pal Singh v. Labour Commr., (2023) 1 HCC (All) 359]
(2023) 2 HCC (Bom)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—S. 34—Setting aside foreign award on grounds of limitation—Observed, the ground of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, can never be a ground which would involve any basic notion of morality of justice for an arbitral award to be set aside, [Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. v. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 335]
Evidence Act, 1872—S. 32(1) —Multiple dying declarations—Admissibility and reliability—The deceased had given two dying declarations, one recorded by PSI and second, by Special Judicial Magistrate. Held, it is not about plurality of dying declarations, but inconsistencies that enfeebles the case of prosecution. The two dying declarations were inconsistent, however, can be remedied if dying declarations corroborated by reliable and consistent witness testimonies, [Sk. Javed Sk. Gulam Rasul v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 367]
Defence and National Security—Works of Defence Act, 1903—Ss. 3 and 7—Declaration and notice for imposition of restrictions—Petitioner’s challenged the denial of no-objection certificate by naval authorities for reconstruction of a bungalow near missile battery base. Held, Executive instructions issued in terms of the impugned circulars do not follow the procedure prescribed under the Works of Defence Act, 1903; in particular, the procedure as prescribed under Section 3 of the Act, 1903. Hence, no restrictions could have been imposed upon use and enjoyment of subject property by mere executive instructions, [Dolby Builders (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn., Greater Mumbai, (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 382]
Intellectual Property—Design Act, 2000—Ss. 2(d), 4(b), 19(b) and 22—Cancellation of design—Atomberg Technologies Private Limited sought interim reliefs in the context of its registered design of ceiling fan named Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan challenging the registration of Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited fan design. Held, Atomberg failed to make out its case for claiming infringement of its proprietary rights and was unable to make out that ‘something more’, as required under law, to successfully claim interim reliefs, even on the aspect of passing off, [Atomberg Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Luker Electric Technologies (P) Ltd., (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 426]
Labour Law—Industrial Dispute—Satara District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. was aggrieved by Additional Chief Secretary’s order cancelling the recruitment process undertaken by the bank, appointing 385 junior clerks and junior peons on the establishment of the bank. Viewed that it would be iniquitous to disturb the appointments of 385 employees at such a belated stage, hence, the order was held to be, unsustainable, [Satara District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 446]
Education Law—Admission Procedure—Eligibility/Qualifications/Criteria—The Cut-off date of age eligibility for admission to nursery/pre-school was challenged, which provided only students aged 3+ as of 1-6-2023 would be eligible for admission to first year of nursery/pre-school. Held, merely because petitioner fell on the wrong side of cut-off date, it cannot be concluded that cut-off date is arbitrary, unreasonable or a result of non-application of mind, [Krushav Sardessai v. State of Goa, (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 463]
Penal Code, 1860— Ss. 376(2)(i) and 377— Sexual assault— Trial, sentencing and other issues— Appreciation of evidence—Upon finding that victim was minor at time of incident, placing reliance on medical examination indicating evidence of sexual assault and proving charges against accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court upheld the conviction for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i), 377 and 342 and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, [Manoj v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 472]
Family and Personal Laws—Validity of Will—The executor filed petition seeking probate of will. Held, mandatory conditions for execution of will under S. 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 were not satisfied, the evidence on record raised serious doubts and suspicions with respect to genuineness and validity of alleged will, [Shonali Kedar Dighe v. Ashita Tham, (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 487]
(2023) 1 HCC (Cal)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Or. 7 R. 11 and Or. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 — Rejection of plaint by invoking Or. 7 R.11(a) suo motu, whether justified—The power conferred upon the Court to terminate civil action is drastic and accordingly, conditions prescribed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code have to be strictly adhered to. With reference to Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code it can be held that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint, [Sharmistha Majumder v. Kriti Safui, (2023) 1 HCC (Cal) 663]
Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption—Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Ss. 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d)—Challenge against conviction for demanding and taking bribe—Held on facts, subsequent recovery of phenolphthalein tainted notes from his drawer and his handwash yielding positive result clearly indicated wrongful intention of the accused, and serial wise detection of tainted currency notes clearly pointed out acceptance of bribe money, [Soumen Kumar Pal v. CBI, (2023) 1 HCC (Cal) 679]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Ss. 397 and 401—Scope of power of Sessions judge to transfer case to another investigating officer—In absence of any specific allegation against the investigating agency acting illegally and contrary to the detriment of the defence and the State, the Sessions Judge has no authority or reason to have directed the Superintendent of Police to transfer the investigation of the case from one Investigating Officer to the other, [Sanjib Ghosh v. State of W.B., (2023) 1 HCC (Cal) 690]
(2023) 6 HCC (Del)
Service Law—Departmental Enquiry—Appreciation of evidence—Case of no evidence—Interference by High Court—Held, it is a well-settled proposition of law that findings of disciplinary authority can be interfered with if they are perverse, or based upon no evidence at all, [Sunil Kumar Saxena v. Export Inspection Council, (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 253]
Income Tax—Business or Revenue Expenditure—Disallowance Excessive and unreasonable payments—The Burden of proof on revenue to show that expenditure was excessive. Held, assessee must be given opportunity to prove that expenditure was reasonable, [Mehra Jewel Palace (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 277]
Labour Law—Domestic/Departmental Enquiry—Natural justice—Appellant was charged with gross misconduct in performance of his duties—Held on facts, delinquent granted full opportunity to appellant to defend case in disciplinary proceedings and remained present or absent as per his own wishes, could not be said to infringe natural justice. Delinquent could not establish prejudice caused to him due to non-supply of documents to sustain allegations of violation of natural justice. Hence, impugned order was, upheld, [Hari Ram Tiwari v. NDMC, (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 287]
Income Tax—Capital Gains—Transactions not regarded as transfer—Effect of S. 47(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961—Transfer of capital assets by parent company to its subsidiary. Held, surplus not assessable as capital gains. Income tax leviable only in accordance with provisions of Income Tax Act, [CIT v. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 297]
(2023) 1 HCC (Mad)
Criminal Trial—Appeal against acquittal for offence under S. 135(1)(a)(ii) r/w S. 135-A of the Customs Act—Held, Appellate Court cannot interfere with order of acquittal without substantial or compelling reasons. When acquitted, there was double presumption in favour of the accused. If two conclusions are possible, Appellate Court Should not disturb findings of trial court, [Commr. of Customs v. A. Dhanapal, (2023) 1 HCC (Mad) 371]
Sales Tax and VAT—Rectification of Mistake—Requirement of granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to dealer only where enhancement of tax or penalty is involved, [Sri Ragava Medical & General Stores v. STO, (2023) 1 HCC (Mad) 379]
GST—Input Tax Credit—Challenge to an order of assessment passed under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, rejecting the rectification application filed under Section 161 of the Act. Held, it was for the assessee to have responded to the notices furnish the break-up of the ITC claimed under GSTR 3-B as sought for by the officer and attempt to reconcile its claim of ITC in the GSTR 3-B return with the ITC reflected in GSTR 2-A and GSTR 9. Petition, dismissed, [Seoyon E-HWA Summit Automotive India (P) Ltd. v. Commr. (SGST), (2023) 1 HCC (Mad) 391]
GST—Registration—Cancellation of —Continuous filing of nil returns—Writ petition filed to quash the order of the respondent by which, the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled and for a direction to the respondent to revoke the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration. Held, no useful purpose served by keeping assessee out of goods and services tax regime, hence registration to be restored, [V. Ravichandran v. Commr. (SGST), (2023) 1 HCC (Mad) 413]
Competition Laws—Competition Act, 2002—Ss. 27, 28, 33, 39. 42 and 61—Ouster of jurisdiction of civil court under S. 61 of the Competition Act—On several pleas by Indian startups against Google’s new user choice billing system, seeking rejection of the plaint, allowed the petitions seeking rejection of plaint for being barred by Section 61 of the Competition Act, [Google India (P) Ltd. v. Matrimony.Com Ltd., (2023) 1 HCC (Mad) 418]
