Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Recommends Removal Of DRT Nagpur Presiding Officer, Finds He Lacks Basic Legal Knowledge
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur on Thursday recommended that the Union government immediately remove Presiding Officer Pankaj Kumar from the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Nagpur. The bench found him unfit to continue in office and noted his wilful disobedience of the court's directions.Justices Anil S. Kilor and Raj D. Wakode, while recommending his removal, observed that Kumar was unfit to continue in the position."...the present respondent is not suitable for adorning the post of...
Bombay High Court Directs Meta To Remove AI Deepfake Video Impersonating Delta Corp Promoter
The Bombay High Court on 6 August directed Meta Platforms to remove an AI-generated deepfake video allegedly showing Delta Corp Limited promoter Jaydev Mody announcing the launch of an online casino application and social media pages allegedly impersonating the company. A Bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja passed the interim order after the company sought removal of fraudulent and impersonating content allegedly using its brand. He observed: “Unless the Defendant has any contrary material, which has...
Co-Operative Banks Need Not Deduct TDS On Interest Paid To Co-Operative Societies: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that co-operative banks are not required to deduct Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on interest paid on fixed deposits held by another co-operative society, holding that the exemption for such payments continues to apply. A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe interpreted Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, which exempts certain categories of interest payments from TDS. The dispute before the bench was whether the exemption...
Bombay High Court Upholds Fraud Tag On Former Realme Zonal Distributor, Rejects Ex-Director's Plea
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition filed by Anil Khemani, former director of Eagle Electronics India Pvt Ltd (EEPL), a Realme zonal distributor. Khemani had challenged Axis Bank's show cause notice and its decision declaring the company's account as "fraud". A division bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla upheld the bank's October 16, 2025 order. The Court found no violation of the principles of natural justice and held that the fraud...
Pre-2015 Arbitrator Appointment Void Only Without Contractual Authority Or Consent: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court on 4 August held that an executing court cannot refuse enforcement of an arbitral award arising from proceedings initiated before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 merely because the arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, unless the appointment lacked contractual authority and was made without the other party's consent. Justice Jitendra Jain held that pre-23 October 2015 arbitral awards remain enforceable where the arbitration agreement named...
Natural Justice Can't Be 'Sheet Anchor' To Bypass GST Appeal Remedy: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High court has ruled that a taxpayer cannot bypass the statutory appellate remedy under the GST law and directly invoke writ jurisdiction merely by alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice.Holding that such pleas must be supported by specific facts, the court observed, "Taking refuge under natural justice in every case, as a sheet anchor would not justify filing of a Writ Petition under Art. 226, sans justification in the manner the law mandates. This more...
Bombay High Court Pulls Up Masala Maker For Only Paying 'Lip Service' To Trademark Injunction
The Bombay High Court has ruled that cosmetic changes to a trademark cannot be used to sidestep an injunction. Observing that merely paying "lip service" to a court order would undermine its purpose, Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan ruled that Abaad Masala & Co.'s revised branding failed to maintain the required "safe distance" from Sky Enterprise Private Limited's registered marks. The court observed, "Interim orders can be rendered ineffective if there is lip service to the prohibitions...
Banks Must Share Forensic Audit Reports Before Declaring Accounts Fraudulent: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court on 31 July held that banks cannot classify a borrower's account as fraudulent without supplying the investigation and forensic audit reports relied upon for such classification, ruling that withholding these documents violates the borrower's right to a fair opportunity of hearing. The Division Bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan quashed Canara Bank's order dated 25 February 2026 declaring businessman Jayesh V Valia's account as “fraudulent”...
Bombay High Court Allows NSEIL Plea Against Fairwealth Financial Services, Lifts Corporate Veil
The Bombay High Court on 29 July held that courts can lift the corporate veil where a company's separate legal identity is used as a cloak for fraud and misappropriation of investor funds.Justice Gauri Godse allowed an interim application filed by the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSEIL), directing Fairwealth Financial Services Ltd. to disclose its assets and restraining it from transferring or encumbering them after finding prima facie evidence of its involvement in the alleged...
IBC Amendment Removing Interim Moratorium For Personal Guarantors Applies To Pending Cases: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a recent amendment removing the automatic interim moratorium available to personal guarantors to corporate debtors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code applies even to pending insolvency proceedings.Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the amendment, which took effect on May 26, 2026, applies to pending proceedings and operates retroactively, not retrospectively. Rejecting the guarantors' argument that the change applies only to fresh filings, the...
Bombay High Court Pulls Up ITAT Over Failure To Pronounce Reserved Judgments Within 90-Day Deadline
The Bombay High Court has pulled up the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) over the repeated practice of releasing matters reserved for judgment without pronouncing orders. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed that Rule 34(5)(c) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, requires the tribunal to pronounce its judgment within 60 days of concluding the hearing and, in exceptional circumstances, within a further period of 30...