Daily Judgments of 16 June
Bombay High Court
WP/15228/2023
Parties: SUNDYNE PUMPS AND COMPRESSORS INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA, JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court held that the Petitioner, an Indian company providing services to its overseas group companies, is not an "agent" of the foreign recipients under the GST laws. The court found that the Petitioner is supplying services to its foreign group companies on a principal-to-principal basis and not on behalf of another party, and therefore does not qualify as an "agent" under the CGST/MGST Act.
The court also relied on a clarification issued by the tax authorities stating that supplies between group companies in India and their foreign group companies would not be considered as supplies between "merely establishments of a distinct person" and would qualify as "export of services" under the GST laws.
Since the Petitioner has satisfied all the conditions for "export of services", the court held that it is eligible for refund of the unutilized input tax credit. The court directed the Respondents to grant the refund to the Petitioner within 4 weeks.
WP/8123/2019
Parties: VISHWAS HARIDAS JADHAVAR Vs THE UNION OF INDIA THRU CHIEF SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE M.S. SONAK, JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, holding that his grievances regarding the 2006-2008 civil services selection process had already been addressed by the Delhi High Court, and the change in law under the 2016 Act could not revive the concluded selection process. The court found that granting the relief sought by the petitioner at this stage would lead to administrative chaos and complications.
COAPP/11/2006
Parties: HINDUJA REALTY VENTURES LTD., VS JUHU BEACH RESORTS LIMITED AND 28 ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANISH PITALE
Area of Law: Company Law
The High Court held that:
1. The findings of the Company Law Board (CLB) that Aasia Properties (the original petitioner) became a shareholder only on 28.01.1983, and not on 30.08.1982 as claimed, were correct. The CLB rightly relied on the share certificates as prima facie evidence over the allegations of manipulation in the company's share transfer records.
2. The CLB erred in holding that once oppression is established under Section 397 of the Companies Act, winding up on just and equitable grounds becomes "automatic". The court must separately examine if the facts justify a winding up order.
3. While the CLB has wide powers under Sections 397 and 402 to provide relief, these powers are not unbounded and are subject to the requirements of these provisions being satisfied. The CLB cannot grant relief beyond the scope of these provisions.
4. The CLB's direction allowing Aasia Properties to nominate a non-functional director on the board, despite rejecting its claim of an oral understanding for board representation, was unsustainable and set aside.
5. The petition filed by Aasia Properties was not barred by limitation, as the CLB had rightly considered the allegations of continuous oppression and the material becoming available only in 2004.
Calcutta High Court
CRA/708/2015
Parties: ADHISHEKHAR BISWAS vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the offense of cheating, as it did not establish that the accused dishonestly induced the victim to deliver any property or valuable security. The court relied on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Mariam Fasihuddin case, which discussed the contours of the offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC. The High Court held that the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court was erroneous and liable to be set aside.
WPA/4083/1983
Parties: VISHNU SUGAR MILLS & ORS. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by Vishnu Sugar Mills and others, holding that the placement of the petitioner's sugar mill in Schedule V (efficient units) instead of Schedule VI (less efficient units) for the purpose of determining the levy sugar price was erroneous. The court relied on the earlier judgment in Godabari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, which had held that the licensed crushing capacity of the mill, and not its actual crushing capacity, should be the criteria for classification. The court quashed the relevant Price Determination Orders and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner the price for levy sugar supplied as per Schedule VI.
WPA/7266/2025
Parties: GOBINDA LAL BASU & ORS. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT PAUL
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court held that the petitioners, who are ex-employees of the respondent company, are entitled to the revised amount of gratuity and leave pay as per the government's notifications dated 3rd August, 2017 and 10th July, 2018. The court found that the respondent company has not issued any circular regarding its "affordability" to implement the revised gratuity and leave pay, and therefore, it can be presumed that the company has the affordability to do so. Accordingly, the court directed the respondent company to disburse the enhanced gratuity and leave pay along with interest at 10% from July 2018 until payment.
FMA/555/2025
Parties: ABDUR ROUF vs LAKSHMI ASSET AND LAND LLP AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court upheld the trial court's order granting temporary injunction restraining the appellant (defendant no.1) from creating any third party interest or changing the nature and character of the suit property.
The Court held that the suit is not barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, as the core relief sought is cancellation of the 2012 deed and 2023 sale certificate. The plaintiff's right to sue first accrued in 2023 when it learnt of the 2012 deed and sale certificate.
The Court further found that the non-disclosure of the certificate of delivery of possession did not amount to suppression of a material fact, as it did not impact the injunction order. The plaintiff was also entitled to challenge the 2012 deed, even though its predecessors-in-title had not done so earlier, as they had no occasion to do so.
Lastly, the Court held that the defendant was given an opportunity to file objections to the first injunction application, so the impugned order did not violate the principle of natural justice.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court's injunction order.
TS/20/2016
Parties: MANTU DEBI BENIA vs SMT. SOVA GUPTA
Judge(s): JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court held that the plaintiff proved the execution of the last will and testament of the deceased testatrix Mantu Debi Benia in accordance with law, as attested by one of the witnesses. While the defendant raised suspicions about the will's genuineness, mental capacity of the testatrix, and surrounding circumstances, the court found the plaintiff's evidence convincing and did not find any real suspicious circumstances to deny the grant of probate. The court directed the issuance of the probate of the will dated 30th May, 2000 to the plaintiff, the executor named in the will.