Latest news with #FirdoshPPooniwalla
Indian Express
10-06-2025
- Indian Express
HC holds BMC ‘negligent', orders Rs 50 lakh each to kin of 8 victims of Hotel City Kinara fire
Nearly a decade after eight persons lost their lives in a fire at Kurla's Hotel City Kinara in 2015, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday held Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) negligent and directed it to pay Rs 50 lakh each to their kin within 12 weeks. Slamming BMC for 'gross negligence' over granting approvals without following norms, the HC observed that 'an utter failure of its officials in the discharge of their statutory duties' was a 'proximate cause of the fire'. It said the BMC can be held 'vicariously liable for acts and commission and omission of its officials'. On October 16, 2015, a fire broke out on the mezzanine level of a hotel restaurant that killed eight people. Among the victims were seven undergraduate students from Don Bosco Institute of Technology and College and a 32-year-old employee of Sterling Engineering Consultants. A bench of Justices BP Colabawalla and Firdosh P Pooniwalla passed a verdict on a plea filed in 2018 by parents of seven victims and wife of the eighth deceased challenging the order of the February, 2017 Lokayukta order. The Lokayukta had rejected their plea seeking an investigation, observing that a compensation of Rs 1 lakh each has already been paid to them by the state government, prompting them to move HC. Senior advocate Naushad Engineer for the petitioners argued that the restaurant was operating without proper permission, including no-objection certificate (NOC) from the fire department, it was the duty of BMC inspectors to shut it down. Senior advocate AY Sakhare for the BMC claimed that the incident was a direct result of 'reckless and negligent actions of hotel owner and operator, who violated safety norms', and the civic body cannot be made liable to pay compensation. However, the bench quashed and set aside Lokayukta's order noting that it failed to consider that Rs 1 lakh was merely an ad-hoc compensation and it did not consider the actual compensation to be paid to the petitioners. The HC observed that BMC should have maintained 'higher standard of care' in matters concerning public safety and that no action was taken despite civic officials were aware of the breach, which was a 'fire hazard' that the mezzanine floor/loft area, which can be only used for storage purposes was being used to serve customers. The court said it was 'even more shocking' that Kinara was granted an eating housing licence without obtaining any fire NOC from the Fire Brigade Department and said the same was 'one of the most egregious breaches committed not only by the owner of Kinara but also by BMC'. It also noted that the BMC had permitted the use of LPG cylinders without licence and their storage in the loft area of the restaurant. The HC said BMC neither acted on complaints made about violations by the restaurant nor its own inspection reports. The HC further observed that except for one victim who was 32-year-old, all others were students and were nearly 20 years old having dependents, therefore they had 'full working life ahead of them' and they would 'earn a good salary during their whole working life'. 'Keeping all these factors in mind, in our view, in respect of each victim, compensation of at least Rs30 lakh would be payable in 2015 (year of incident). Considering inflation and the interest that the said sum of Rs 30 lakh would have earned over the period of 10 years, the compensation payable to each of the Petitioners, in 2025, would be Rs 50 lakh,' the bench held, while holding BMC to be liable to pay Rs 50 lakh compensation to each petitioner.
United News of India
03-06-2025
- General
- United News of India
HC allows slaughter of animals and annual Urs of shrine in Maharashtra
LAW HC- URS Mumbai, June 3 (UNI) The Bombay High Court on Tuesday allowed animal slaughter and celebration of annual Urs (festival that commemorates the death anniversary of a saint, typically held at their dargah ,shrine or tomb) of the shrine at Vishalgad Fort in Kolhapur, saying certain conditions should be strictly complied with during the slaughter of animals on the occasion of Bakr Id. A vacation bench of Justices Neela K Gokhale and Firdosh P Pooniwalla passed an order during the hearing of an interim application by Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan Dargah Trust, seeking permission for slaughtering animals on the specific dates. While permitting animal slaughter for Bakri Eid on June 7 and the four-day Urs from June 8 to 12 at the dargah bench clarified that the order shall apply to the petitioners as well as the dargah devotees who come there to sacrifice animals on the said days. The trust had filed an interim application in its writ plea challenging various communications issued by the director of archaeology and museums, the superintendent of police, Kolhapur, and the chief executive officer of the Kolhapur Zilla Parishad seeking a ban on slaughtering of animals and birds at Vishalgad in Shahuwadi Taluka. The authorities had claimed that the slaughtering of animals was taking place at a protected monument, and as per Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1962, there was a prohibition to cook and consume food in the fort premises. However, the petitioner trust, had argued that the dargah within the fort precincts was a historical monument constructed in the 11th century and is visited and revered by both Hindus and Muslims. The trust claimed that while the animal sacrifice at the dargah was an 'integral custom', the actual sacrifice does not take place in a public place but behind closed doors on private land nearly 1.4 km away from the fort. The lawyers argued that the offerings are served to pilgrims and others at the dargah and have been a source of food to many poor people residing in the surrounding villages of the fort. UNI AAA PRS
Indian Express
03-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Bombay HC permits animal slaughter for Bakri Eid and Urs at dargah at Vishalgad fort
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday allowed animal slaughter for Eid al-Adha (commonly known as Bakri Eid) and Urs at the dargah at Vishalgad Fort in Kolhapur, saying certain conditions should be strictly complied with. The court permitted animal slaughter for Bakri Eid on June 7 and the four-day Urs from June 8 to 12 at the dargah at Vishalgad fort and clarified that the order shall apply to the petitioners as well as the dargah devotees who come there to sacrifice animals on the said days. A vacation bench of Justices Neela K Gokhale and Firdosh P Pooniwalla was hearing an interim application by Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan Dargah Trust, seeking permission for slaughtering animals on the said dates. The trust had filed an interim application in its writ plea challenging various communications issued by the director of archaeology and museums, the superintendent of police, Kolhapur, and the chief executive officer of the Kolhapur Zilla Parishad seeking a ban on slaughtering of animals and birds at Vishalgad in Shahuwadi Taluka. The authorities had claimed that the slaughtering of animals was taking place at a protected monument, and as per Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1962, there was a prohibition to cook and consume food in the fort premises. However, the petitioner trust, through advocates Satish B Talekar and Madhavi Ayyapan, had argued that the dargah within the fort precincts was a historical monument constructed in the 11th century and is visited and revered by both Hindus and Muslims. The trust claimed that while the animal sacrifice at the dargah was an 'integral custom', the actual sacrifice does not take place in a public place but behind closed doors on private land nearly 1.4 km away from the fort. The lawyers argued that the offerings are served to pilgrims and others at the dargah and have been a source of food to many poor people residing in the surrounding villages of the fort. The Justice Gokhale-led vacation bench referred to the June 14, 2024, order of a bench of Justices B P Colabawalla and Pooniwalla that allowed animal slaughter during Bakri Eid and Urs at the said dargah. 'Considering the fact that the coordinate bench of this court in order dated June 14, 2024 has already dealt with the issue and had permitted the prayer, the same shall continue for the festival of Bakri Eid, which is on June 7 and the Urs for four days from June 8 to 12. Needless to state, the same conditions, which have been imposed in the June 14, 2024 order, shall apply to the petitioners in the present interim application and also to devotees of Dargah who come to sacrifice animals during Bakri Eid and Urs. The conditions imposed in June 14, 2024 order shall be strictly complied with,' the vacation bench noted in the order and disposed of the trust's application. The conditions include that the killing of animals or birds shall only take place in the closed premises, a private land owned by one Mubarak Usman Mujawar, and the killing of animals should not be done in an open place or a public place.
Yahoo
08-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Indian court to rule on whether a doughnut shop is bakery or restaurant
A court in India is hearing a case that decides whether doughnuts should attract 5 or 18 per cent tax, in a case that could have significant implications for India's restaurant and bakery industries. At the core of the dispute is whether doughnuts should be taxed as part of restaurant services, which carry a five per cent charge under India's Goods and Services Tax (GST), or as standalone bakery products, which fall under the 18 per cent GST bracket. This comes after the Indian arm of doughnut chain Mad Over Donuts challenged a notice from India's Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGCI) that held them guilty of tax evasion for incorrectly classifying their business as a restaurant service and ordered them to pay more than Rs1bn in dues. A similar notice was also served to chains Dunkin' Donuts, Theobroma, and Krispy Kreme. The notice stated that the DGCI, during its investigation, questioned the head chef of Mad Over Donuts, who allegedly said that the doughnuts are prepared in a central kitchen and then sent to individual outlets, according to The Economic Times. At these outlets, 'garnishing, chocolate pouring, and packing' are done before an item is sold, thus the products are sold 'over the counter'. On Monday, the Bombay High Court's division bench of Justices BP Colabawalla and Firdosh P Pooniwalla heard the petition from Himesh Foods Pvt Ltd, the parent company of Mad Over Donuts. Mad Over Donuts maintained that it meets the criteria for it to be classified as a restaurant, since all its outlets have a kitchen to heat the items sold and the doughnuts go through a final preparation before sale. The Indian law enforcement agency argued that the kitchens at these outlets are 'stretching the definition of service beyond' the guidelines under the GST act, and any garnishing of the doughnuts before they are served is 'nothing but to make the said products attractive for the customers before selling them over the counter, similar to the types of sweets prepared by confectioners with various coatings and spreading different dry fruits over it'. Advocate Abhishek Rastogi, representing Mad Over Donuts, pointed to that GST notifications that categorise food sold at restaurants, eateries, messes, and canteens under the 5 per cent tax bracket, irrespective of whether they are eaten on-site or taken away. 'If for some reason, this order is not dealt pragmatically then there are high chances of disruption for the food and beverages sector,' he added. The court ruled that no coercive action can be taken against Mad Over Donuts while the case is pending, and listed it for hearing on 24 March. Over the last few years, India has seen a few other tax classification disputes. The most notable took place in September 2022, when the authorities insisted that frozen Malabar parottas (a layered flatbread cooked primarily in southern Indian states Kerala and Tamil Nadu) should be taxed at a higher rate than frozen rotis (a round flatbread) since they took longer to cook and therefore could not be classified as ready for consumption. A similar controversy erupted over popcorn last year, after Indian finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced that caramel popcorn would be taxed at a higher rate than regular salted popcorn, since 'anything with added sugar attracts a different tax rate'. The United Kingdom too saw a dispute of a similar nature over three decades ago – the famous legal battle over Jaffa Cakes, where the courts deliberated over whether they were biscuits, which are taxed at 20 per cent or cakes, zero-rated for Value Added Tax (VAT). McVitie's, the company that makes the Jaffa Cakes, argued that Jaffa Cakes harden when they go stale, like cakes, unlike biscuits which went soft and soggy.
The Independent
08-03-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Indian court to rule on whether a doughnut shop is bakery or restaurant
A court in India is hearing a case that decides whether doughnuts should attract 5 or 18 per cent tax, in a case that could have significant implications for India's restaurant and bakery industries. At the core of the dispute is whether doughnuts should be taxed as part of restaurant services, which carry a five per cent charge under India's Goods and Services Tax (GST), or as standalone bakery products, which fall under the 18 per cent GST bracket. This comes after the Indian arm of doughnut chain Mad Over Donuts challenged a notice from India's Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGCI) that held them guilty of tax evasion for incorrectly classifying their business as a restaurant service and ordered them to pay more than Rs1bn in dues. A similar notice was also served to chains Dunkin' Donuts, Theobroma, and Krispy Kreme. The notice stated that the DGCI, during its investigation, questioned the head chef of Mad Over Donuts, who allegedly said that the doughnuts are prepared in a central kitchen and then sent to individual outlets, according to The Economic Times. At these outlets, 'garnishing, chocolate pouring, and packing' are done before an item is sold, thus the products are sold 'over the counter'. On Monday, the Bombay High Court's division bench of Justices BP Colabawalla and Firdosh P Pooniwalla heard the petition from Himesh Foods Pvt Ltd, the parent company of Mad Over Donuts. Mad Over Donuts maintained that it meets the criteria for it to be classified as a restaurant, since all its outlets have a kitchen to heat the items sold and the doughnuts go through a final preparation before sale. The Indian law enforcement agency argued that the kitchens at these outlets are 'stretching the definition of service beyond' the guidelines under the GST act, and any garnishing of the doughnuts before they are served is 'nothing but to make the said products attractive for the customers before selling them over the counter, similar to the types of sweets prepared by confectioners with various coatings and spreading different dry fruits over it'. Advocate Abhishek Rastogi, representing Mad Over Donuts, pointed to that GST notifications that categorise food sold at restaurants, eateries, messes, and canteens under the 5 per cent tax bracket, irrespective of whether they are eaten on-site or taken away. 'If for some reason, this order is not dealt pragmatically then there are high chances of disruption for the food and beverages sector,' he added. The court ruled that no coercive action can be taken against Mad Over Donuts while the case is pending, and listed it for hearing on 24 March. Over the last few years, India has seen a few other tax classification disputes. The most notable took place in September 2022, when the authorities insisted that frozen Malabar parottas (a layered flatbread cooked primarily in southern Indian states Kerala and Tamil Nadu) should be taxed at a higher rate than frozen rotis (a round flatbread) since they took longer to cook and therefore could not be classified as ready for consumption. A similar controversy erupted over popcorn last year, after Indian finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced that caramel popcorn would be taxed at a higher rate than regular salted popcorn, since 'anything with added sugar attracts a different tax rate'. The United Kingdom too saw a dispute of a similar nature over three decades ago – the famous legal battle over Jaffa Cakes, where the courts deliberated over whether they were biscuits, which are taxed at 20 per cent or cakes, zero-rated for Value Added Tax (VAT). McVitie's, the company that makes the Jaffa Cakes, argued that Jaffa Cakes harden when they go stale, like cakes, unlike biscuits which went soft and soggy.
