Category Archives: Uncategorized

Former Jet Airways Chairman Naresh Goyal and his wife Anita can now breathe a sigh of relief as the Bombay High Court invalidated the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) ECIR against them. The order was made in response to a petition filed by the two justices asking for the ECIR against them under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to be quashed. The petition was filed by Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan (PMLA).

FACTS OF THE CASE : 

The petitioners’ senior attorneys, Ravi Kadam and Aabad Ponda, argued that there was no predicate offence, as necessary, for the ED to examine the ECIR. The police claimed they filed a “C” Summary Report in response to the complaint made to the MRA Marg Police Station in Mumbai.

The attorneys further argued that even the protest petition filed by ED was denied, and both the High Court and the Supreme Court upheld the order. They said that the ECIR would therefore need to be overturned.

In order to argue for the dismissal of the PMLA case, the attorneys cited the Supreme Court rulings in Parvathi Kollur & Anr. vs. State by Directorate of Enforcement and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Shreeram Shirsaat, the attorney for ED, stated on Thursday that there was nothing more to dispute about given the judgement.

Yet he added that it might not be remembered as his speech and that the court might issue the proper orders.

JUDGEMENT :

The bench ruled on Thursday that the petition was acceptable under prayer clause (a).

The order was made in response to a petition filed by the two justices asking for the ECIR against them under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to be quashed. The petition was filed by Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan (PMLA).

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY.

According to the Bombay High Court, in the case of Mahipati Antu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra ( Criminal Bail Application No. 2777 of 2022) the NALSA’s plan for the release of convicts who are awaiting trial is intended to draw attention to the undertrial inmates who are languishing in jail, but it cannot supersede the court’s power to grant or deny bail to such detainees based on merits. When rejecting bail to a murder suspect, Justice S. M. Modak noted that nothing could interfere with the court’s right to decide whether to grant bail.

 FACTS OF THE CASE : 

The accused, who was charged with a murder offence under Section 302 of the IPC, requested bail under Trials Over 65 Years Old Category 16 of the UTRC@75 Scheme. The nature of the offence or the length of the accused’s imprisonment as a prisoner pending trial are not mentioned in this category. The accused was eligible because he was 71 years old. The Sessions Court rejected his request for bail.

According to attorney Hrishikesh R. Chavan, if the merits of the cases are taken into account, the scheme’s goals will be defeated. The State’s APP N. B. Patil argued that the case’s merits must be taken into consideration; otherwise, many inmates awaiting trial will be released on bail, regardless of the case’s merits. The Sessions Court denied the accused’s bail request after the court took notice of the accused’s attempt to assassinate four witnesses.

The plan was designed with the high percentage of convicts awaiting trial, the court remarked. The plan required the government to take action to free the convicts awaiting trial. Nonetheless, the court ruled that the accused is ineligible for release after the trial court and HC weighed the merits.

JUDGEMENT : 

“It is true that it is the discretion of the concerned Court ; whether to grant bail or not. Such discretion cannot be taken away by any act. So, we gather that by framing such a scheme, the attention of the concerned stakeholders is brought to the effect that in your district, there are certain prisoners who are languishing in jail for so many years.”, the Court stated. 

The trial has already begun, the court said. Hence, it instructed the trial court to take into account the fact that the accused is older than 65 and the plan was set up for the release of undertrial detainees older than 65.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY. 

The provisions of the GST statute cannot be read in a way that prevents any citizen or subject from engaging in trade and commerce, according to the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench. The division bench of Justice Mangesh M Patel and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar observed the same in the case of Rohit Enterprises Versus The Commissioner State GST Bhavan (Writ Petition No. 11833 Of 2022) 

FACTS OF THE CASE : 

The assessee/petitioner works in the fabrication sector. It is registered under both the 2017 Maharashtra State Goods and Services Tax Act and the 2017 Central Goods and Services Tax Act. His company received the registration certificate.

The petitioner claimed that GST returns for the period beginning in August 2021 could not be filed because he had undergone angioplasty and the company had experienced a financial setback as a result of the pandemic.

If a registered individual or entity fails to submit three consecutive returns, the proper offices may cancel registration pursuant to Section 29(2) of the GST Act.

The petitioner was given seven working days to provide an answer after the State Revenue Officer in Aurangabad issued a “show-cause” notice. The message specified that the petitioner’s registration was currently suspended. On March 3, 2022, the petitioner responded to the show cause notice. He asked for the notice to be revoked, citing the cause of the financial crisis. The registration was, however, revoked by the State Tax Officer as of August 21, 2021.

The petitioner asked for the registration’s cancellation to be overturned. The state tax officer responded by sending a show-cause letter for the application’s denial. The petitioner was required to submit the response together with any necessary supporting documentation, such as bank statements up to the date of the notification, a challan for tax, interest, and a late filing fee, within 7 days of receiving the notice. A hearing in the matter was slated for April 25, 2022. Finally, the petitioner’s plea for reversal of cancellation was denied by the state tax officer.

The petitioner claimed that he is a vendor for Bajaj Auto Limited and relies on fabrication for his livelihood. The pandemic scenario hindered the petitioner’s business operations, resulting in significant financial losses.

JUDGEMENT : 

“Despite any flaws in the GST enactment plan, the constitutional promise must be upheld because it is unqualified and unambiguous. Contrary to the constitutional protection provided by Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to practice a trade or profession cannot be restricted. The state will lose money if the petitioner’s request to reinstate the registration is denied, and the GST regime’s ultimate purpose would be unsuccessful “Judge Mangesh M. Patel and Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar’s division bench noted.

Upon granting the appeal, the court ruled that it is not in the government’s best interest to restrict the rights of entrepreneurs like the petitioner, even while considering the purpose of the provisions under the GST Act. The petitioner must be let to keep operating and bring in money for the state. The petitioner has said in front of us that they are prepared and willing to pay all of the fees as well as any applicable penalties and interest.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY. 

The Bombay High Court has inquired if there is a policy to deal with historic settlements within a protected monument and has ordered the demolition notices issued to more than 100 tenements near Kolhapur’s renowned Vishalgad Fort to be put on hold until March 10. Judge Gautam Patel, who presided over a division bench, questioned the petitioner’s attorney, Pradnya Talekar, after she stated that some of the tenements had been regularised.

FACTS OF THE CASE : 

The petitioners claim they received an assurance of rehabilitation at a meeting conducted prior to the demolition notices being issued. The plea further claims that without any rehabilitation, they will be made homeless. 

On December 13, 2022, the Department of Archaeology abruptly sent notices to property owners under Section 21 (2) of the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites Remains Act, 1960, requesting that they tear down their buildings within 30 days, failing which the government would launch a demolition campaign. In their appeal, the petitioners stated that a number of fundamentalist parties and religious organisations, including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, were responsible for the intended demolition because Muslims were allegedly encroaching on the fort site.

In their appeal, the petitioners stated that a number of fundamentalist parties and religious organisations, including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, were responsible for the intended demolition because Muslims were allegedly encroaching on the fort site.

The petitioners claim they received an assurance of rehabilitation at a meeting conducted prior to the demolition notices being issued. The plea further claims that without any rehabilitation, they will be made homeless.

JUDGEMENT : 

The court instructed the State, “You’ll then have to justify in your affidavit why some of them are regularised.” Attorney Akshay Shinde announced that he would submit a response to the appeal on behalf of the Maharashtra government. March 10 has been set aside for the issue. The petitioners claim to have owned the property for between 30 and 60 years. One of them received a land allocation in 1983, and the court was informed of several regularisation applications. 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY.