Bombay High Court
ITO Acted On Complete Change Of Opinion On Same Material With Intent To Review Assessment Order Passed By Him: Bombay HC Quashes Reopening
While setting aside the reassessment proceedings, the Bombay High Court held that 'change of opinion' or 'review of already completed assessment', is not permitted to AO.While holding so, the Division Bench of Justice G.S Kulkarni and Justice Advait M Sethna observed that there is no whisper of allegations against the assessee that income that has escaped assessment was attributable to the assessee for not disclosing fully & truly all material facts necessary for assessment.Facts of the...
High Court Under Article 226/227 Can Examine Validity Of Interlocutory Orders Passed By Arbitrator: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Shailesh P. Brahme and S.G. Mehare has held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not excluded from examining the validity of the interlocutory orders passed by the Arbitrator. Brief Facts The respondent was selected through tender process by the petitioner for constructing building for ladies hostel and extension work of electrical buildings. The work was completed and then disputes were started...
Delisting Regulations Of SEBI Not Applicable To Delisting Of Equity Shares Under Resolution Plan: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices M.S.Sonak and Jitendra Jain has held that Delisting Regulations framed by the SEBI would not be applicable to the delisting of shares of the company in pursuance of the approval of a Resolution Plan under section 31 of the code. Brief Facts In this case, the petitioner challenges the vires of Regulation 3(2)(b)(i) of the SEBI Delisiting Regulations, 2021 on the ground that it is violative of the SEBI Act. Along with this, the petitioner also...
"Maintainability" And "Jurisdiction" Cannot Be Conflated While Deciding Application U/S 20 Of Arbitration Act, 1940: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Amit Borkar has held that maintainability and jurisdiction cannot be used interchangeably as they connote different things. Lack of jurisdiction results in the nullity of proceedings, as the court inherently lacks authority to adjudicate. Non-compliance with maintainability bars leads to dismissal without deciding the merits of the case but does not affect the court's inherent power. Brief Facts: The petitioner is challenging the order dated...
SARFAESI And Arbitration Proceedings Can Proceed Parallely As Nature Of Both Proceedings Is Distinct: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Advait M Sethna has affirmed that SARFAESI proceedings are in the nature of enforcement proceedings, while arbitration is in the context of an adjudicatory proceedings. The SARFAESI proceedings and arbitration proceedings thus can proceed parallely. The court further observed that the role of referral court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act is very limited to verifying the existence of an arbitration agreement. Brief Facts This...
After Execution Of Sale Deed, Arbitration Clause Mentioned In Agreement For Sale Becomes Ineffective: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice R. I. Chagla has held that the Agreement for sale has come to an end by the execution of the Deed of Conveyance / Sale Deed. It is well settled that once a Conveyance is executed, the object, purpose, effectiveness and validity of the Agreement for sale comes to an end. Therefore, the arbitration clause in the Agreement comes to an end as the Agreement stands fully discharged and does not have any legal effect upon the execution of the Conveyance. ...
S.9 Application Not Appropriate For Relief Against Non-Signatory When There Is No Dispute Between Parties To Be Referred To Arbitration: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor has held that Section 9 of the A&C Act is not the correct mechanism to obtain relief against an entity when the privity of contract is absent between Factual Overview: The dispute arose regarding a Redevelopment Agreement (RDA) and a Supplementary Agreement (SA) dated 20 July 2022. The agreement was entered between the Developer (Petitioner) and the Co-operative Housing Society Limited (Respondent No. 1), comprising eleven...
Court Cannot Go Into Merits While Enforcing Foreign Award U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S Doctor has held that jurisdiction of enforcement court under section 48 of the Arbitration is very limited and while enforcing the award the court cannot go into the merits of the case. Brief Facts This petition has been filed seeking enforcement of an award under part II of the Arbitration Act. This award was passed by an International Court Arbitration, London by which the petitioner was awarded a sum of Euro 2.45 million and costs. ...
Department Can't Deny Grant For Waiver Of Interest U/S 234C Of IT Act Without Disposing Of Issues Flagged By Taxpayer: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court recently clarified that the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have addressed the issues/justification as flagged by the taxpayer in supporting its case for grant of waiver of interest u/s 234C.Such approach of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax would show non-application of mind to the material contentions raised by the petitioner/ assessee, added the Court. Section 234C of the Income tax Act provides for levy of interest on account of default in payment of...
Adjudicating Authority's Inaction To Dispose Of Proceedings Can't Be Attributed To Taxpayer In Absence Of Any Malice On His Part: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court ruled that when the Revenue Dept. did not allege any malice on the part of Assessee in the context of disposal of the proceedings, then inaction on the part of Adjudicating Authority to dispose of the proceedings cannot be attributed to Assessees.Finding that the Authority had passed the final order after a lapse of more than 16 years from the date of CESTAT's order, the Division Bench of Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe and Justice M.S Sonak observed that such inordinate delay in...
Appeal Can't Be Dismissed Due To Non-Payment Of Pre-Deposit If Department's Portal Acknowledges Compliance: Bombay High Court
Observing that provisional acknowledgement automatically generated on Department portal shows that the requisite pre-deposit has been made, the Bombay High Court held that the Assessee had duly complied with the necessary pre-deposit required u/s 107(6) of the CGST Act.The Division Bench of Justice M.S Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that in a similar matter in Bytedance (India) Technology Pvt Ltd vs. UOI [W.P (L) No.23724 of 2024], it was held by this court that “On the amount of...
Asset Deposited By Corporate Debtor As Security Before CIRP Commencement Continues To Be Asset Of Corporate Debtor: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that monies or any other asset deposited by a corporate debtor in court prior to commencement of CIRP by way of security would continue to be the asset of the corporate debtor.Brief Facts:The Appellant (Corporate Debtor) was directed to pay Rs. 12 lakh as damages along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a to the Respondent in a judgment dated 13.06.2016. In an appeal challenging the said judgment, an...