Explained| Why SC sets aside Bombay HC order acquitting Prof GN Saibaba and others in UAPA Case
The Court directed to remit the matter back for fresh disposal before another bench of the High Court.
The Court directed to remit the matter back for fresh disposal before another bench of the High Court.
The Court stated that the “claim of the respondents ought to have been tested by the Tribunal and the High Court in the proper perspective to see whether it is an attempt to get the best of both the worlds.”
by Abhiraj Gandhi† and Nirali Shah††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 34
The Supreme Court stated that the erroneous assessment order had resulted in loss of the Revenue in the form of tax. Thus, the High Court had committed a very serious error in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner passed in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
Bombay High Court commented that refusal to discharge the accused merely with an observation that intercourse was forcible at some time cannot be said to be a justified exercise of power.
The court while denying the interim relief to ‘Phonepe’ said that it is settled law that when the plaintiff fails to make out a prima facie case in its favor, the aspects of grave and irreparable loss in the absence of interim reliefs and balance of convenience pale into insignificance.
Strange state of affairs; Neither investigating authority prepared rough map nor Trial Court took pain in recording correct directions for want of evidence
Bombay High Court opined that the Revisional Court was obliged to prima facie discuss or indicate material on record showing Raj Thackeray’s involvement in the alleged crime.
Bombay High Court observed that the dictionary meaning of “act of god” is “an instance of uncontrollable natural forces in operation” I.e., a severe, unanticipated natural event for which no human is responsible.
The Supreme Court proposed that service rules are liable to prevail, and that there can be Government resolutions in consonance and not in conflict with those rules.
The Supreme Court observed that the Bombay High Court disregarded the nature and gravity of the alleged offence as well as the the financial stature, position and standing of the accused vis-à-vis the prosecutrix.
While dismissing the petition seeking ED/CBI probe in Uddhav Thackeray income source along with other office bearers of Shivsena party, Bombay High Court held the same to be an abuse of the process of law.
Bombay High Court directed the State of Maharashtra to pay compensation of Rs 10 lakhs to the petitioners and left the State at liberty to recover the same from officers at fault.
Bombay High Court rejected the insurance company’s contentions and directed them to pay the claim of Rs 11,05,953 to the petitioner with interest and Rs 5 lakhs as costs of litigation.
Bombay High Court quashed two of State Government’s circulars, limited the stamp duty only to additional area purchased during redevelopment, and laid several pointers which shall apply further beyond the facts of the present matter.
On 03-03-2023, the President has appointed following Additional Judges of Bombay High Court, to be Judges of Bombay High Court with effect
Referring to the auto driver expressing his liking to the minor girl without any sexual intent, Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail holding that he prima facie deserves protection from arrest.
Cases under Section 153A are on the rise and the onus is on the police/State to ensure that the said provision is not misused by anyone, much less, political parties.