#bombay #Highcourt #bombayhighcourt #Justice #law #seekingjustice Archives

9 Jan

Domestic abuse lawsuit against daughter-in-law is viable, but not against her father or brother: High Court of Bombay

Prime Legal

Case Title: Mrs. Zeba Mohasin Pathan, Easak Gulab Pathan V. State of Maharashtra

Case No: Writ Petition No. 5185 of 2018

Decided on: 5 January, 2024

CORAM: Dr. Neela Gokhsle, J

Facts of the Case

This case includes the Concern of the liability of a daughter-in-law, her father, and her brother under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), a legal point is raised in the petition. Zeba, the petitioner, complained of domestic abuse in her married household and filed a DV Act application against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and mother-in-law’s brother. Respondent No. 2, Afrin, filed a complaint in the JMFC Court, Koregaon, and Satara, under Section 12 of the DV Act against Zeba, her father, and her brother.

Legal Provisions

The DV Act, 2005, provides protection to women victims of various forms of domestic violence. The Act defines “domestic violence” to include physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, or economic abuse. The Act empowers the Magistrate to pass protection orders to prevent the respondent from committing acts of domestic violence and other specified acts

Issues

The main issues are with the sufficiency and durability of the JMFC court’s complaint and summons against the petitioners. According to the petitioners, Zeba’s ongoing maintenance and domestic violence proceedings is the target of the Domestic Violence (DV) proceedings, which they claim are a reprisal. It is alleged that this meddling could amount to “Contempt of Court” because it obstructs the administration of justice. According to the petitioners, they do not belong to the list of those against whom DV proceedings may be rightfully brought. This calls into question whether the proceedings that were brought were appropriate. Abuse of Legal Process: The petitioners ask the court to revoke the complaint because they believe Respondent No. 2 has abused the legal system. It is important to handle serious legal concerns when there are claims of improper use or manipulation of the judicial system.

Courts Analysis and Decision

In the present circumstances, Zeba falls within the statutory definition of the term ‘respondent’ as delineated in the Act. It is hereby determined that a complaint filed by a mother-in-law under the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) is permissible against her daughter-in-law, contingent upon the satisfaction of additional criteria. The adjudication of the veracity of the allegations made by Afrin against Zeba is deferred to the DV Court, which shall assess the merits of the complaint. Consequently, the complaint against Petitioners No.2 and 3 is hereby quashed, and the summons issued to them pursuant to the order dated 10th January 2019 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Koregaon, Satara is annulled. Conversely, the complaint against Zeba is deemed maintainable, and the DV Court is authorized to proceed with the prosecution against Zeba without prejudice to any observations on the merits articulated in this order. All other contentions raised by the parties remain unresolved. It is expressly clarified that no determination on the merits of the complaint has been undertaken in this order.

In accordance with the foregoing, the petition is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

“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.”

Written by- Komal Goswami

Click to read the judgment

16 Nov

High Court of Bombay decision regarding the issue of improper sanction having been obtained has been raised.

Prime Legal

Blog #bombay #Highcourt #bombayhighcourt #Justice #law #seekingjustice, #HighCourt, #JUSTICE, #law, #seeking

High Court of Bombay decision regarding the issue of improper sanction having been obtained has been raised.

Title : Chandar Mahadev Naik v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 and Ors.

Case No. : W.P (L) NO. 17578/2023

CORAM : HONBLE JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM & NEELA GOKHALE.

Decided on : 30 th OCTOBER 2023

Introduction

High Court of Bombay decision regarding the issue of improper sanction having been obtained has been raised. These petitions relate to A.Y. 2016-2017. Counsel states that in these petitions the issue of improper sanction having been obtained has been raised amongst other grounds.

Fact of the Case

the issue of improper sanction has been decided by this court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. 1 wherein the court has held that for A.Y. 2016-2017 the sanction should have been given under Section 151(ii) and not under Section 151(i) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act). Consequently, the sanction is invalid. The court has stated that in view of the invalid sanction, the notice issued itself will be invalid and has to be quashed.

Case Analysis and Judgment

Findings in Siemens Financial Services Pvt Ltd. (Supra) would squarely apply to these petitions as well on the issue of sanction. If the notice has to be quashed, if there is an assessment order passed subsequently, those assessment orders having been passed relying on an incorrect sanction will also have to be quashed.

Therefore, impugned Assessment Order dated 27th May 2023 issued under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside. In view of the above, all consequential proceedings including Notice of Demand, Penalty proceedings also stands quashed and set aside. Petition is disposed.

Written by Nimisha Sunny

10 Nov

High Court Bombay recommend that a detailed enquiry be initiated on the failure on the part of the Faceless Assessing Officer concerned.

Prime Legal

Blog #bombay #Highcourt #bombayhighcourt #Justice #law #seekingjustice

High Court Bombay recommend that a detailed enquiry be initiated on the failure on the part of the Faceless Assessing Officer concerned.

Title : Vodafone Idea Limited v. Central Processing Centre

Case No. : WP ( L ) No. 15398/2023

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE

Decided on : 8 th November 2023

Introduction

Petitioner has called in question the failure of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to refund the amount paid by Petitioner for Assessment Year (“AY”) 2016-2017, which Petitioner claims to have paid in excess of the legitimate tax due on the returned income of Petitioner and seeks a refund of the said amount along with applicable interest.

Fact of the Case

The case of Petitioner is quite elementary, and we are constrained to observe the complete apathy and negligent approach of the assessing officer concerned in discharging his duties, in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Any dereliction and remissness on the part of officers entrusted with a duty to act within the strict contours of law affects the exchequer and has far reaching consequences on the prosperity and economic stability of the nation. Laxity in this regard has a propensity to destroy and bring to naught any effective system put in place by the Government for efficient and transparent administration of taxation laws and its regulations. Such an adverse effect on the exchequer is revealed in the present case.

Case Analysis and Judgment

The Court strongly recommend that a detailed enquiry be initiated on the failure on the part of the Faceless Assessing Officer concerned to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the lack of diligence on the part of officials concerned and the system itself insofar as it relates to the present assessment. Strict action should be taken against persons responsible for the laxity and lethargy displayed which has caused a huge loss to the exchequer and in turn to the citizens of this country. A copy of this order be circulated to the CBDT and the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance, GOI.

Written by Nimisha Sunny