Kishor S/o Chintaman Tarone Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) The crux of the issue involved is whether an administrator of Whatsapp group can be held criminally liable for objectionable post of its member for committing offences punishable under sections 354- A(1)(iv) , 509 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 […]
We find that impugned rejection of the declaration of the petitioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice which has impacted the decision making process thus rendering the decision invalid, it may not be necessary for us to enter into the merits of the challenge as to whether the declaration of the petitioner was in fact valid or not under the category of ‘voluntary disclosure’.
Goods and Services Tax Practitioners’ Association Vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court) On due consideration, we are not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the petitioners that too at this eleventh hour. It is not that the time-limit has not been extended. The initial due date of 31.12.2020 has been extended to […]
Macrotech Developers Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) a. It is declared that the Petitioners are entitled to the benefits of Order bearing No. Mudrank-2020/ C.R.No.136/ M-1(Policy) dated 29.08.2020 issued by the State of Maharashtra under the Maharashtra Stamp Act and subsequent orders granting concession in payment of stamp duty on the instrument […]
Kondiba Shankar Nikam Vs Balasaheb Kisan Bhosale (Bombay High Court) In this case Learned counsel for the appellant has removed the mask despite guidelines. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for resumption of physical hearing at the Principal Seat, High Court of Bombay w.e.f. 11th January, 2021 contemplates Wearing of mask at all times, even during arguments […]
Jsk Marketing Limited & Anr Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court) A conjoint reading of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 70 & 174 of the CGST Act show that though the Central Excise Act and the Finance Act, 1994 to […]
We may mention that demat accounts of the petitioners have been frozen for non-payment of annual listing fee which has been quantified at Rs.14,16,000/- for the period from 2015-16 to 2019-20. Against the freezing of demat accounts, petitioners preferred appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal.
Sabareesh Pallikere Vs Jurisdictional Designated Committee (Bombay High Court) In so far the present case is concerned, we may refer to the first statement of the petitioner recorded on 06.07.2018. In this statement, he categorically admitted that the total service tax liability of the petitioner for the period 2013-14 to 2017-18 (upto June, 2017) would […]
Heard Mr. Jas Sanghavi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sham Walve along with Mr. Ram Ochani, learned counsel for the respondents.
We had noticed that the Commissioner may authorize arrest of a person only if he has reasons to believe that such a person has committed any offence under the clauses mentioned therein.
