Will Not Monitor Trial In Govind Pansare Murder Case: Says Bombay High Court, Orders Daily Hearing In The MatterCase Title: Smita Pansare vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 (LiveLaw) Bom 1The Bombay High Court on Thursday (January 2) said it will not continue to monitor the trial in the murder case of communist party of India (CPI) leader Govind Pansare, who was allegedly shot down...
Case Title: Smita Pansare vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 (LiveLaw) Bom 1
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (January 2) said it will not continue to monitor the trial in the murder case of communist party of India (CPI) leader Govind Pansare, who was allegedly shot down by right-wing extremists in August 2013. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata while disposing of an application moved by prime accused Virendra Tawade, said the only aspect which is being investigated as on date is the whereabouts of the absconding accused in the case.
Case title: Prameya Welfare Foundation vs. State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 2
While disposing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought the implementation 'Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana' for all eligible women in the State, the Bombay High Court has observed that the State must take the necessary steps to ensure that all the eligible women are entitled to the benefits of the altered scheme.
Case Title: Shweta Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 3
The Mumbai Police last month informed the Bombay High Court that it has shut the 'forgery' case against TV actor Shweta Tiwari, lodged by her estranged husband Abhinav Kohli in 2021. A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Dr Neela Gokhale permitted Tiwari to withdraw her writ petition before the High Court, by virtue of which the silver screen actor had sought to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against her by Kohli.
Following A Girl Only Once Will Not Amount To Stalking: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Amit Chavan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 4
In a significant order, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that merely following a girl or a victim once, will not amount to stalking as prescribed under the 354-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the provisions under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Case title: Jindal Cocoa LLP vs Reserve Bank of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 5
Interpreting Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) 2015 Master Circular on Rupee/Foreign Currency Export Credit & Customer Service to Exporters, the Bombay High Court said that a delay in submitting export documents despite the export taking place within the given time, would not result in the credit ceasing to be an 'export credit'.
Case title: Charushila Bira Shriram vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 6
The Bombay High Court has observed that the immunity of two years given to a Sarpanch against No Confidence Motion under the 4th proviso of Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 is to be computed from the date of the first election and not from when a subsequent Sarpanch is elected for filling the vacancy. Justice Sharmila Deshmukh was of the view that the “date of election” in the provision indicates that the words are situation-specific and not person-specific.
Case title: Dnyaneshwar Lingappa Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 7
The Bombay High has directed the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and the Solapur Municipal Corporation to pay Rs. 50000 each to three landowners whose properties were requisitioned by the Collector under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, and remained in possession of MHADA after the expiry of the requisition period without formal notification of acquisition under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act).
Case Title: Vijay Sonkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 8
The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash two cross First Information Reports (FIR) lodged by Hindu and Muslim families against each other respectively after the two families allegedly had a scuffle. In doing so a division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Rajesh Patil noted that the 'communal frenzy' between the two communities, which led to a scuffle and thus, both the families ended up lodging cross cases against each other.
Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Rona Wilson & Sudhir Dhawale In Bhima-Koregaon Elgar Parishad Case
Case Title: Rona Wilson vs. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 9
In a major relief for researcher Rona Wilson and activist Sudhir Dhawale, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (January 8) granted them bail in the Bhima-Koregaon Elgar Parishad case. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata considered the fact that the duo have spent more than 6 years in jail as undertrials.
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 10
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against two maternal uncles and aunts of a man at the behest of his wife, on the ground that they got him married to the complainant woman, despite knowing that he could not develop physical relations with any woman. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Rajesh Patil said whether a husband suffers from such a medical condition or not, is usually known to himself and generally such information is not known even to the nearest relatives.
Case title: Sunil Modi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 11
While dismissing the plea filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sunil Modi, challenging the Governor's decision permitting the State government to withdraw 12 Member of Legislative Council's (MLC) nominations, the Bombay High Court observed that as no 'decision' was taken by the Governor on the earlier advice tendered by the Council of Ministers for nomination of 12 MLCs, no right was conferred on the recommended members. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar opined that since there was no Government Order as per the requirements of Article 166 of the Constitution giving effect to the names recommended, the Council of Ministers had discretion to withdraw the recommendations.
Case Title: Yushika Gedam vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 12
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday while emphasising that travelling abroad has become an essential requirement of modern life, held that the right to travel must not only be recognised but also be made more meaningful. A division bench Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna made the observations while pulling up the Passport Authorities for refusing to re-issue a passport to a minor girl, who wanted to visit Japan for an educational event sponsored by her school.
Case title: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs Anusaya Sitaram Devrukhkar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 13
The Bombay High Court has observed that a delay in filing an appeal against the award of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act') cannot be condoned by the court beyond a period of 120 days as provided under Section 74(1) of the Act. A division bench of Justice Burgess Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan noted that as the proviso to Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act specifically states that High Court cannot condone delay for a further period of exceeding 60 days, after the initial period of 60 days, this amounts to express exclusion of the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Bombay High Court Declines To Quash FIR Lodged By Wife Against Husband For Outraging Her Modesty
Case Title: Sanket More vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 14
The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man by his estranged wife, for outraging her modesty. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Rajesh Patil refused to quash a FIR lodged with the Kasturba Sub Police Station in Malvani, Mumbai, under sections 354 (outraging modesty of a woman), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 323 (causing voluntarily hurt) lodged against the husband by his wife.
Case title: Bharti Neeraj Chaourasiya vs Indian Overseas Bank
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 15
The Bombay High Court recently chastised the Indian Overseas Bank for denying the request of one of its employees to reverse her promotion in Chennai and transfer her back to Mumbai, so that she could better care for her visually impaired child. Remarking that the bank's approach lacked 'human sensitivity', a division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashwin Bhobe said it was making an 'exception' to allow the petitioner to return to her original post in Mumbai.
Coldplay Concert: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Guidelines On Ticket Scalping
Case title: Amit Vyas vs Union Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 16
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning 'ticket scalping' and black marketing of online tickets for concerts and other events. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar said that the matter fell within the purview of police making and thus the Court could not entertain it.
Case Title: Shreegopal Barasia vs M/s. Creative Homes
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 17
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that substantive objections concerning the validity and existence of an arbitration agreement can be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal and not by the court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: VC vs RC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 18
A wife filing a false complaint against her husband just for correcting his behaviour would not find place in harmonious relations a married couple would maintain normally and the same will amount to cruelty, the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna refused to interfere with the decision of a Family Court, which while granting divorce to a couple noted the fact that the wife had lodged a false case against the husband and his family members, which caused them mental cruelty.
Case Title: MM vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 19
The Bombay High Court recently held that merely telling a woman that if she fails to bring the amount demanded by her husband or in-laws, from her parental house, she would not be allowed to cohabit with her husband, will not amount to mental or physical harassment. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi noted that the wife in her First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the husband and her in-laws, had stated that they had asked her to bring Rs 5 lakh from her parents' house so that the husband can pay the same for getting a permanent job in public service. She however, stated that her parents are poor and thus, would not be in a position to pay the said amount.
Case Title: Rupali Ganguly vs Esha Verma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 20
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday in an ad-interim order, restrained Esha Verma and John Doe platforms from making or publishing any defamatory content against TV actor Rupali Ganguly. Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor passed the order after it noted that the posts and interviews by Esha, the step-daughter of Rupali, were prima facie defamatory.
Case Title: Vaibhav Mawale vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 21
The Bombay High Court bench at Nagpur on Wednesday held that just because a woman committed suicide after her 'long standing relationship' was broken up by the man, he cannot be booked for abetting her suicide. Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke discharged a man booked for abetting the suicide of a woman, with whom he was in a relationship for 9 years.
Case title: The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement vs The Branch Manager, The Goa State Co-op Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 22
The Bombay High Court has held that a delay in filing an appeal under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) cannot be condoned by the High Court beyond 120 days as stipulated in the provision. A division bench of Justice Burgess Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan stated that Section 42 PMLA excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which permits the court to condone delay if the applicant shows sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the stipulated period.
Case Title: Health Care, Medical & General Stores vs Amulya Investment,Through Proprietor Mr. Sameer G. Narvekar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 23
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil has held that service of a signed copy of an award on an employee of a party to an arbitration agreement is not a valid service under section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: Hushad Neville Bacha vs Eric Girgol Vegas
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 24
While quashing a First Information Report (FIR) against a 22-year-old man for driving a two-wheeler without a helmet and licence in 2017 (when he was 17-years-old), the Bombay High Court asked him to perform 'community service' at a hospital for four Sundays. The court further directed him to deposit his licence with the Mumbai Police for nearly three months and not to drive any vehicle in this period.
Case Title: Rakesh Brijlal Jain vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 25
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday while imposing an exemplary costs of Rs 1 lakh on the Enforcement Directorate (ED) observed that it is high time that the central agencies like the ED should conduct themselves within the parameters of law and stop taking the law in the own hands and harass citizens. Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav said a 'strong message' needs to be sent to the law enforcement agencies to ensure that the citizens are not harassed.
Case title: Shubhamkaroti Charitable Trust vs State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 26
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (January 22) disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to permit students with dysgraphia, a learning disability, to give oral examinations for their board examinations. As the government policy permitted writers for such students, a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre said that no further orders need to be passed in the petition.
Case Title: Shravani Suryavanshi vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 27
The Bombay High Court recently expressed displeasure over the manner in which the Sports fraternity in Maharashtra suffers due to the 'apathy' of the State government, in shortlisting the State's Diving Team (women) for participating in the National Games to be held on January 29, in Uttarakhand.
Case Title: RD vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 28
While acquitting a 43-year-old man convicted for raping his own minor daughter, the Bombay High Court observed that in ordinary circumstances, a daughter will not level such allegation against her father and even the father will not rape his own daughter. Sitting at theNagpur bench, Justice Govind Sanap considered the 'human psychology' in which 'mistakes can occur.'
Case title: Navneet Singh Gogia vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 29
The Bombay High Court has observed that a Magistrate is justified in proceeding with a trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) in the absence of the accused and without recording a statement under Section 313 CrPC, if the accused or their advocate has not been attending the trial or the accused has not sought for dispensing personal attendance.
Case Title: Seawoods Estates Ltd. vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 30
The Bombay High Court recently restrained a housing society from preventing the house help of a woman from entering the society premises and assisting the woman, because she (the resident) feeds stray dogs. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna said the housing society, by restraining the woman's house help and other staff from entering the premises, was only breaching her fundamental rights.
Case Title: Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association vs Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 31
The Bombay High Court on Thursday said that using loudspeakers for prayers or for reciting religious discourses is not an essential part of any religion and therefore, ordered the Mumbai Police to strictly implement the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 and ensure that no religious place creates noise pollution by using loudspeakers. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Shyam Chandak noted that Mumbai being a 'cosmopolitan' city, people from different religions live here.
Case Title: Sabyasachi Nishank vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 32
In an interesting bail order, the Bombay High Court on Thursday while granting bail to a 'highly educated' man jailed for drunk driving, ordered him to perform community service by manning traffic in the busy junction at Mumbai's plush Worli area for three months (12 Saturdays and 12 Sundays), with a placard in his hand reading "Don't Drink & Drive." Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav noted that the applicant Sabyasachi Nishank, was working as a Senior Vice President in a NBFC namely Centrum Wealth Limited, his father was a retired officer of Reserve Bank of India and his mother a business woman.
Case title: Sukhshanti Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs Nishant M. Mahimtura
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 33
The Bombay High Court recently initiated suo moto contempt against two flat owners, who demolished the walls of their flat along with a flat owned by another person resulting in structural alterations, without necessary permission from the BMC. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata observed that despite action initiated by the petitioner-society and order of the Court permitting the BMC to take action against the flat owners, they failed to restore the flats to their original position.
Case Title: An Advocate vs Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 34
The Bombay High Court recently stayed an order passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) by which it had suspended the licence of a Mumbai-based female advocate over a complaint by few members of the Advocate Association of Western India (AAWI) A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna questioned the manner in which both the BCI and the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) dealt with the complaint against the female advocate in total disregard to principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Balya @ Rahul Sahebrao Lokhande vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 35
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that a woman, who is raped, would be in shock and thus she cannot be expected to travel alone in the night to the police station to lodge a criminal complaint against the accused person. Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap made the observation while upholding a man's conviction for raping a woman. The judge refused to accept the contention of the convict that there was a delay in lodging of the First Information Report (FIR) on part of the victim as she went to the police station on the next day of the alleged incident.
Case Title: Sri Sathe Infracon Private Limited vs M/s Rudranee Infrastructure Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 36
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice RM Joshi has held that compliance with Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory and that the court cannot assume jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11 unless a request for a reference of dispute is received by the respondent.
Case Title: Nikhil Ranjwan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 37
Just because an individual participated in a political rally and the same turned violent later will not be a ground to initiate preventive detention process against them, said the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court while ordering the release of a man booked for participating in a rally demanding reservations to the Maratha Community. A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit Joshi noted that the petitioner before it was booked in a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on October 31, 2023 for participating in a political rally demanding Maratha Reservation and subsequently, the rally turned violent.
Case title: Asif Shaikh vs State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 38
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday accepted the statement of the Maharashtra government that it has transferred First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against a group of students, who were booked for allegedly assaulting a Muslim man and forcing him to chant "Jai Shree Ram."
Govind Pansare Murder Case: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Six Accused
Case title: Sachin Prakashrao Andure vs State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 39
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (January 29) granted bail to six men booked for the murder of communist party of India (CPI) leader Govind Pansare, who was allegedly shot down in August 2013.
Case Title: Wonderchef Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. vs Shree Swaminarayanan Pty Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 40
Observing that commercial speech is a part of 'free speech' guaranteed by the Constitution of India, the Bombay High Court imposed a 90-day injunction against an Australia-based distributor of Wonderchef Home Appliances, owned by Celebrity Chef Sanjeev Kapoor, from making any comments or communications which could harm the reputation of the company, due to a contractual clause preventing them from doing so.
Case title: Court's on its own motion vs State of Maharashtra Department of School Education
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 41
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (January 29) disposed of a suo motu PIL concerning the State Government's proposed 'cluster school policy'. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre noted Advocate General Birendra Saraf's stand that the State government has not taken any policy decision on its proposal.
Case Title: Amit Dholakia vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 42
Observing that charging stations for electric vehicles within society premises will help reduce the menace of air pollution, the Bombay High Court recently ordered the Maharashtra government to finalise its policy with regard to installation of charging points/stations with the housing societies, at the earliest. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna while dealing with a petition filed by a businessman living in Mumbai's plush Pedder Road area, noted that despite multiple communications and representations made by him, his society was not permitting him to install a charging station in his society premises, for his electric car.
Case Title: Avinash Benewal vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 43
The Bombay High Court while granting bail to a 'young adult' booked for assaulting a man along with his 'gang members', noted that he was merely 18 years old at the time of the incident and that he was studying in Class 12 and therefore, granted him bail observing that "he will be reformed if he goes back to his books." Justice Milind Jadhav said keeping the accused behind bars would only make him a 'hardened criminal' as he would see his peers progressing in life and he is in jail.
Case Title: Tejas Shinde vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 44
The Bombay High Court on Monday while granting bail to a 22-year-old boy booked for killing his own 69-year-old 'bed-ridden' father, observed that the applicant was prima facie gravely 'provoked' by the deceased by abusing him and his mother, repeatedly, which could not be handled by the applicant's 'adolescent' mind. Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav noted that the applicant - Tejas Shinde, was 'provoked' by his bed-ridden father, who kept abusing him and his mother, who works as a house help, and also the fact that the applicant was a student studying in a reputed college in Dombivli (near Thane) and was pursuing his Second Year in Bachelor of Management Studies (BMS).
Case title: Harshi Ramjiyani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 45
While refusing to interfere with Mumbai University's decision to cancel the admission of a student after completion of four semesters due to insufficient marks in the International Baccalaureate (IB) programme, the Bombay High Court observed that if the student did not secure the predicted grades, the Court cannot direct the university to lower the cut-off standard. A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Milind Sathaye considered the petitioner's challenge to Mumbai University's decision, which held the petitioner ineligible for the B.Voc (Interior Design) degree course.
Case Title: Shoaib Richie Sequeira vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 46
The Bombay High Court recently expressed 'disappointment' over the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and also the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police, both showing 'reluctance' to investigate into the complaints of multi-crore fraud by a company both in India and also several foraging countries. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan noted that both the EOW as well as the CBI, for the reasons best known to these Agencies, were reluctant to inquire/investigate into the complaints made by one Shoaib Sequeira accusing one Anand Jain, promoter of Jai Corporation Ltd. and its subsidiaries of misappropriating public funds and laundering the same outside India.
Case Title: Dnyaneshwar Katkar vs The Director General & Inspector General of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 47
The Bombay High Court recently while refusing to grant any relief to a Pune-based Police Inspector said any request from a public servant to change in date of birth in service records, beyond reasonable time, should not be permitted. A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Milind Sathaye said that in such cases, mostly government employees seek such changes only after spending 'considerable time' in service or when they near retirement.
Case Title: Musin Thengade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 48
The Bombay High Court recently held that that the point of limitation under section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) shall commence from the last act of cruelty. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi said that limitation for prosecution under section 498A will not continue for an indefinite period.
Case Title: City Corporation Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 49
The Bombay High Court stated that notice issued to a non-existing entity post-merger is a substantive illegality and not some procedural violation. “We cannot condone the fundamental error in issuing the impugned notices against a non-existing company despite full knowledge of the merger. The impugned notices, which are non-est cannot be treated as “good” as urged on behalf of the department” stated the division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain.
Case title: Yogesh Mangilal Mundhara vs State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 50
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking uniform guidelines for awarding tender contracts for solid waste management in the state, noting that there was no element of public interest involved in the plea. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre stated “In our considered opinion there is no element of public interest involved in the instant PIL and, therefore, it must fail and is hereby dismissed.”
Case title: Ashok S/O Ruprao Yende vs. Bar Council Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 51
While hearing a PIL challenging a Bar Council of India Circular mandating a criminal background check system for law students, the Bombay High Court on Monday (February 10) orally remarked that it did not find anything illegal with the circular before dismissing the petition as withdrawn. Remarking that the petitioner was “foreclosing the right of aggrieved persons”, the Court orally remarked that it would impose heavy costs on the petitioner. The petitioner then sought the liberty to withdraw the petition. The Court thus dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Case Title: Shyamkumar Tulsilal Warnawal vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 52
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently quashed a criminal case lodged against Nestle India for using "substandard" materials for producing "Maggi" and breaching the provisions of the Food Safety Standards (FSS) Act. The company was also facing criminal proceedings for violations of the regulations provided under the Food Safety Standards (Food Product Standards and Additives) Regulations 2011 and also the Food Safety Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011.
Case title: Adani Electricity Mumbai Infra Ltd vs, Union Of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 53
The Bombay High Court has permitted Adani Electricity Mumbai Infra Ltd to cut 209 mangroves for setting up an electricity transmission line near the Vasai creek for the supply of electricity to Mumbai and the suburbs around it. The Court remarked the HVDC project is critical for Mumbai as the existing capacity of the transmission corridor is not sufficient to carry further power into the city and that the project would enable additional power to be supplied to Mumbai to meet the increasing energy demands of the city.
Case Title: Ritik Millil vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 54
The Bombay High Court recently while granting bail to a 20-year-old man booked for raping his minor cousin, said it wants to give a chance to the accused to 'repent, retrospect' and 'be remorseful.' Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav said when the accused undertrials are 'young' then the courts must 'take a chance' by adapting to a 'reformative' approach instead of a 'punitive' approach.
Case title: Ruzbeh Dossabhoy Raja vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 55
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a PIL concerning cyber-attacks impacting the official websites of the State government and its departments, noting that the petitioner is willing to provide suggestions to the concerned authorities on preventing cyber attacks on State government websites.
Case Title: Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs Vast India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 56
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the mandate of the MSME Facilitation Council (Council) cannot be terminated merely on the ground that it failed to render an award within 90 days under section 18(5) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSME Act”) from the date of entering reference as this time period is directory in nature.
Case Title: Gunwant Tarachand Jain @ Nikesh Madhani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 57
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that conveying grounds of arrest within four minutes of arresting an individual was 'reasonable' and the same does not violate any fundamental right of the accused. Single-judge Justice Dr Neela Gokhale was hearing a petition filed by a rape accused challenging his arrest arguing that he was not served with the 'grounds of arrest' in written, within a reasonable time and thus, his arrest was 'illegal.'
Case title: Dharmendra Kumar vs Union of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 58
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition challenging Rule 3 of the Civil Services Examination Rules 2024 which grants Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) under the General/Economically Weaker Section /Other Backward Classes (GL/EWS/OBC) category 9 attempts, while providing unlimited attempts to those belonging to SC/ST category. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashwin Bhobe rejected the petitioner's contention and emphasized the distinct status of SC/ST in the Constitution. The Court noted that while the reservations to PwBD under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is a 'horizontal reservation', the reservation provided to SC/ST and OBC under the constitution is a 'vertical reservation'. The Court was of the view that though PwBD is a distinct class since it is a horizontal reservation, it would cut across the vertical reservation provided to SC/ST candidates.
Bombay High Court Asks State To Make Palghar District Consumer Forum Functional Within 4 Weeks
Case title: Datta Ranba Adode vs State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 59
The Bombay High Court today disposed of a PIL that sought the establishment of the District Consumer Forum in the Palghar District, noting that the Consumer Forum has already been set up by the State government.
Case Title: Lords Inn Hotels and Resorts Versus Pushpam Resorts LLP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 60
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that when there is an ambiguity in the agreement with respect to arbitration related provisions, the business efficacy test can be applied to discern true intent of the parties to arbitrate.
Case Title: Executive Engineer National Highway Division Versus Sanjay Shankar Surve
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 61
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the delay in filing an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (“Arbitration Act”) should not be condoned in a mechanical manner as it would defeat the very objective of the Arbitration Act which is to provide a speedy resolution of disputes.
Case Title: Keller Ground Engineering India Private Limited Versus Archon Powerinfra India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 62
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the court having supervisory over designated venue of the Arbitration proceedings would have jurisdiction to entertain application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) in absence of any contrary indicia indicating any other place to be the seat of arbitration.
Case Title: Mohammed Ajaan Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 63
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (February 13) while granting bail to a 25-year-old man booked for raping a minor girl of 16 years for 15 months and impregnating her twice, said that he was not a 'sexual predator' but a young person, who was involved in a consensual relationship with the girl.
Case title: Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Ashok Kumar Unknown Persons in Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 64
In relation to an IPR suit, the Bombay High Court flagged the issue of police officers failing to provide assistance to additional special receivers (who report to court receivers), observing that they are agents of the court who execute ex-parte ad interim orders and so must be given effective immediate assistance by the police machinery.
Case Title: Ganesh Mendarkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 65
The Bombay High Court on Friday (February 14) while granting bail to a man who spent more than nine years in jail, stressed on the long-term negative effects due to long incarceration on the physical and mental health of an individual.
Case Title: Swanubhuti Jain vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 66
The Bombay High Court recently ordered the Maharashtra government to consider if a clause in 'exceptional circumstances' can be introduced in the 'Aaple Sarkar' the official portal, to enable a citizen, seeking a caste certificate based on the social status of his or her mother, to upload documents of their mother's social status. 'Aaple Sarkar' is the official website of the State government which provides various beneficial schemes for citizens and also enables them to lodge grievances.
Case title: Sagar Dnyaneshwar Shinde vs Secretary Maharashtra State Commission
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 67
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a PIL that sought the appointment of Chairman and Members to the Maharashtra State Commission of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, noting that the State government has appointed the members. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Arif Doctor took note of the State's affidavit indicating that the Chairman and 2 members have been appointed to the Commission through a Government Resolution (GR) dated 16 September 2024. The affidavit said that the Commission is functioning now.
Case title: Mirza Himayat Inayat Baig vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 68
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (February 18) dismissed the petition filed by Mirza Himayat Baig, one of the prime convicts in the German Bakery Blast Case, seeking a directive to the jail authorities to shift him from the 'Anda Cell' a high security risk barrack to the general barrack of the Nashik Central Jail. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale held that the petitioner was not undergoing any 'psychological trauma' as alleged by him in his letter petition to the court. It also junked his contention of being kept in 'solitary confinement.'
Case Title: Vijay Chand Dubey vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 69
The Bombay High Court on Monday granted bail to a 24-year-old man booked for raping a 14-year-old minor girl, noting that the victim had 'sufficient knowledge' and 'capacity' to know the 'full import of her actions' as she 'voluntarily' stayed with the accused for 4 days. Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav noted that multiple decisions of the Supreme Court and various other Courts have favoured the release of young offenders on bail pending trial so that the regressive influences of the jail environment can be avoided and keeping in mind the principle of best interest in the circumstances of a particular case.
Case Title: The Board of Control for Cricket in India vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 70
The Bombay High Court stated that ITAT cannot overstep its authority by deciding on merits when it has already concluded an appeal was not maintainable. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “Once the ITAT concluded that the Appeal before it against the impugned communication/order was not “maintainable”, there was no question of the ITAT evaluating the impugned communication/order on its merits or making any observations or recording any findings regarding its validity or otherwise. Therefore, such observations and findings are without jurisdiction and should not have been made.”
Case Title: Play Ventures NV vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 821 of 2025)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 71
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a Netherlands-based gaming company accused of unauthorisedly broadcasting various popular shows of Viacom 18 group such as 'Bigg Boss' 'Nagging' 'Asur' 'IPL 2023' etc, on various regional Over The Top (OTT) platforms. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale noted that the company - Play Ventures NV and one of its employee - Gulamabbas Muni, who is also the CEO of Sohail Khan Productions had amicably settled the issue with Viacom 18 Group, which contended to have faced losses to the tune of Rs 100 crores.
Case Title: Rupchand Shende vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 72
When the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive her to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a 'misconception of fact' and the same 'vitiates' the girl's consent, the Bombay High Court held recently while upholding the rape conviction of a man, accused of raping a minor.
Case title: Oxford University Press vs DCIT, Int. Tax Circle
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 73
The Bombay High Court has made it clear that merely because the tax rate which is applicable on an assessee changes in future assessment years (AYs), is not a ground to initiate reassessment action against it for previous AYs, unless the 'jurisdictional parameters' of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are fulfilled.
Case title: Systra MVA Consulting (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 74
The Bombay High Court has set aside a notice issued by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) that terminated a tender contract with Systra MVA Consulting (India) Pvt Ltd for the appointment of General Consultant for Mumbai Metro Line, ruling that the cancellation was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Case Title: Hanumant Naik vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 75
While observing that a person cannot be permitted to perform an illegal act in the garb of being "illiterate", the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (February 25) dismissed a man's plea who sought Rs 5 crore compensation from the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) for demolishing his "unauthorised" structure.
Case title: Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni vs ITAT Pune Bench
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 76
The Bombay High Court has disapproved of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal against an ex-parte order passed against a former employee of Pfizer Healthcare without providing him an opportunity of hearing. Stating that ITAT cannot “perpetuate” the ex-parte order, a division bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna directed the Tribunal to hear the employee de novo, so far as his prayer for the grant of exemption under section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned.
Case title: Satish Poptlal Shah vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 77
The Bombay High Court imposed Rs. 2 lakh in exemplary costs on the petitioners for 'taking chances' with the court process by filing a petition claiming ownership of land acquired in 1947, offering no explanation for the 77-year delay and making contradictory pleadings and unverified averments.
Case Title: Pooja Popalghat vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 78
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that a natural guardian being the eldest member of a Hindu joint family can exercise powers to deal with the rights of the minors in the joint family, keeping in mind the aspect of legal necessity and benefit of the minor.
Bombay High Court Slaps Rs 1 Lakh Costs On Man For Audio-Recording Court Proceedings On Mobile Phone
Case Title: Sameer Mohammad Yusuf Patel vs Panvel Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 79
In a recent order, the Bombay High Court (February 27) imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on a litigant who was found to be 'audio-recording' court proceedings on his mobile phone.
Case Title: Priyanka Bannerji vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 80
A marriage duly certified under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 cannot be deemed illegal or void just because either of the spouses did not comply with section 5 of the Act, which mandates one of them to live in the district, where they register their marriage, for 30 days, the Bombay High Court held. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna said once a marriage certificate is issued by the Registrar of Marriages under the Special Marriage Act, it is conclusive evidence of the legality of the marriage until it is quashed by a court of law.
Case title: Madhabi Puri Buch vs State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 81
The Bombay High Court has stayed the order of a special court, which directed the registration of an FIR against Ex-SEBI Chief Madhabi Puri Buch and whole-time members and also the top officials of the Bombay Stock Exchange. Single-judge Justice Shivkumar Dige after hearing the arguments of solicitor general Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocates Amit Desai and Sudeep Pasbola, and also the complainant - Sapan Shrivastava, stayed the special court's order saying that the same was "mechanical."
Bombay High Court Quashes Acquisition Of Agricultural Lands For Navi Mumbai Airport Project
Case title: Avinash Dhavji Naik vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 82
The Bombay High Court has set aside an award of land acquisition of agricultural lands for the purpose of Navi Mumbai Airport Project at Vahal Village in Panvel District, noting that there were procedural lapses in the proceedings. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the State authorities wrongly dispensed with the requirement of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by taking recourse to the 'urgency provision' under Section 17. The Court stated that the State did not issue any notification or direction to invoke Section 17.
Case Title: Devendra Patil vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 83
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) quashed an FIR registered against a man over a phone call in which he told another person that respect for Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar has reduced because of followers like the latter. The Court opined that asking a follower of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar why s/he is 'using' the leader's name when they cannot follow his footsteps, and saying that because of such followers, his (Ambedkar's) name is defamed, and that because of such followers, the respect for him has 'reduced' does not constitute an offence.
Bombay High Court Refuses To Order Release Of Dismissed Cop Sachin Waze In Antilia Bomb Scare Case
Case title: Sachin Hindurao Waze vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 84
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by former Mumbai Police police officer Sachin Waze, who sought his release in the Antilia Bomb Scare case alleging that his arrest was illegal. Notably, Waze was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on March 13, 2021 for allegedly placing an explosive-laden vehicle near industrialist Mukesh Ambanis's residence Antilia in Mumbai. He was charged under Sections 16 and 18 of UAPA for the commission of terrorist activities.
Case Title: Kartik Radia vs M/s. BDO India LLP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 85
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the mere fact that an LLP is not a signatory to an LLP Agreement does not, by itself, preclude it from being a party to arbitration proceedings initiated between Partners under the arbitration clause of such an agreement. The Court observed that an LLP is not a “third party” to its LLP Agreement but an entity with rights and obligations vis-à-vis its partners as per the statutory scheme of the LLP Act. The Arbitral Tribunal, and not the Section 11 Court, has the jurisdiction to determine whether a party is a necessary or proper party to the arbitration.
Case title: Adani Cementation Limited vs Union Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 86
The Bombay High Court has permitted Adani Cementation Limited to cut 158 mangroves for the purpose of construction of a jetty alongwith a conveyor corridor and approach road on the Amba River in Raigad District. The High Court noted that Adani Cement has obtained necessary statutory permissions for cutting mangroves. The Court was of the view that the construction of jetty would achieve the object of easing congestion in roads and help in reduction of carbon.
Case Title: Karan Johar vs India Pride Advisory Private Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 87
In a big win for film-maker and producer Karan Johar, the Bombay High Court on Friday refused to lift the stay on the release of a film "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar" which was imposed in June last year. Single-judge Justice Riyaz Chagla said that the makers of the film 'unauthorisedly' by using Johar's name and personality attributes in the title of their film, prima facie, violated his personality rights, publicity rights and also his right to privacy.
Case title: Devendra Darda vs State of Goa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 88
The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court recently set aside a Magistrate's order issuing summons to the Managing Director of Lokmat Media Private Limited, Devendra Darda, under the Working Journalist and Other Newspaper Employee (Conditions of Service) Act 1955. While noting that the impugned order ought to have been challenged in a Revision Application before the Sessions Court, Justice Valmiki Menezes remarked that it was a “glaring case” where the Magistrate issued summons without any jurisdiction.
Case Title: Ramesh Potdar vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 89
The Bombay High Court recently came to the aid of a group of people from Maharashtra's Kolhapur district and ordered the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to accept their demonetised notes worth Rs 20 lakhs, which were seized by the Income Tax in December 2016 and returned to them after the deadline to exchange the old notes. A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Milind Sathaye noted that the IT Department had seized the notes on December 26, 2016 and the deadline for exchanging the old notes was December 31, 2016.
Bombay High Court Permits Man Convicted Of Electricity Theft To Travel For Haj Pilgrimage
Case Title: Rahim Khan Sandu Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 90
The Bombay High Court recently permitted a man convicted for 'electricity theft' to go on Haj Pilgrimage along with his family after noting that his appeal challenging his conviction will not be taken up in the near future.
Case Title: Kailash Mehar Singh Kher vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 91
Observing that 'intolerance and dissent' from the orthodoxy have been a 'bane' of the Indian society for centuries, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday quashed the criminal case initiated against Bollywood singer Kailash Kher, who was accused of hurting the religious sentiments of the Hindu community in his popular song 'Babam Bam' - a track on Lord Shiva. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Shyam Chandak noted from the complaint filed by one Narinder Makkar before a court in Ludhiana, wherein he alleged that in the song sung by Kher in 2007, it can be seen that several girls and boys wearing clumsy clothes are dancing and even kissing each other, which has hurt the sentiments of the Hindu Community because the song was about Lord Shiva.
Case title: Ramadas KS vs TISS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 92
The Bombay High Court has upheld the suspension of a Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) PhD student, Ramadas KS, who was debarred from the institute for 2 years for participating in a protest against the BJP government and implementation of National Education Policy (NEP) under the banner of PSF – TISS. A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Milind Sathaye observed that the said protest/march was politically motivated and noted that TISS was correct in finding that Ramadas created an impression that the views expressed in the march represented the views of the institute and that this brought disrepute to the institute.
Judge Who Resigned Also Entitled To Pension Benefits As Judge Who Retired : Bombay High Court
Case title: Pushpa Virendra Ganediwala vs High Court Of Judicature Of Bombay Through Registrar General
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 93
The Bombay High Court has observed that the 'resignation' of a High Court Judge constitutes 'retirement' under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act 1954 and thus a judge who resigned from services would also be entitled to the same pensionary benefits as a judge who retired by superannuation.
Case Title: Sanjiv Mohan Gupta vs Sai Estate Consultants Chembur Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 94
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that where the correspondence between the parties included invoices which contained an arbitration clause and the parties acted upon those invoices without protesting, then it could be deemed that the party had accepted the arbitration clause.
Case Title: Tukaram Parab vs State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 95
In a significant order, the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court has said that the mindset to 'dilute' or 'stifle' the the fundamental right to protest of citizens, if gains traction, it would one of the saddest days of democracy. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Mahesh Sonak said the State must not launch prosecution only to stifle agitations, which are a part of the democratic process, at least till it does not turn violent.
Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Imposition Of Double Toll Fees On Non-FASTag Vehicles
Case title: Arjun Raju Khanapure vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 96
The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging circulars issued by the National Highways Authority of India, which mandates vehicles without 'FASTag' to pay double the toll fees. Noting that the introduction of FASTag was a policy decision aimed for providing efficient road travel, a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre rejected the petitioner's contention that mandating the use of FASTag violates the fundamental rights of citizens.
Bombay High Court Grants Relief To Gautam Adani In 2012 Cheating Case Worth ₹388 Crore
Case title: Rajesh Shantilal Adani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 97
In a reprieve for industrialist Gautam Adani, the chairman of Adani Enterprises and its Managing Director Rajesh Adani, the Bombay High Court today quashed a sessions court order which refused to discharge them in a Rs 388 crore alleged market regulations violation case. Single-judge Justice Rajesh Ladhha quashed the November 2019 order passed by a sessions court in Mumbai, which held that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) has made out a case against Adanis in the said market regulations violation case.
Case title: V. Ravi Prakash vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 98
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking investigation by CBI or SIT into alleged fraudulent bank guarantees accepted by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) from a private company, Megha Engineering Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL), for the construction of a Twin Tube Road Tunnel between Thane and Borivali worth around Rs.16,600.40 crore. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre remarked that the petitioner's conduct was mala fide and that the petition suppressed material facts.
Bombay HC Sets Aside ESIC Order For Denying Hearing And Relying On Undisclosed Reports
Case title: Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 99
A single judge bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh set aside the Employees' State Insurance Corporation's (ESIC) rejection of Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal. The court found that ESIC violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without granting a hearing, despite disputed facts about when the company received the original order. The court also ruled that ESIC's order was flawed as it relied on an undisclosed committee report. Thus, the matter was remanded to the ESIC Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication.
Case Title: Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 100
The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Somsekhar Sundaresan has observed that once an arbitral award has been set aside by the court in the exercise of its powers under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the parties would be restored to the original position and a fresh arbitration in such circumstances would not amount to the proverbial “second bite at the cherry”.
Case Title: J Fibre Corporation vs Maruti Harishchandra Amrute
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 101
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep Marne partially allowed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order. The court held that an employee who had already crossed retirement age could not be reinstated, but was entitled to lumpsum compensation for the period between illegal termination and retirement. The court observed that while the employer had valid business reasons for reducing staff, failure to follow proper retrenchment procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act rendered the termination illegal. Thus, the court awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,58,073 covering the period from termination until the employee's retirement date.
Case Title: Raju Shetty vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 102
In a major relief for sugarcane farmers in Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court on Monday (March 17) quashed and set aside a Government Resolution (GR) which provided for a 'delayed and less' Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) to the farmers as it would affect them adversely. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna held that the GR issued by the Maharashtra government on February 21, 2022, was in contravention to the Sugar Control Order (SCO), 1966 issued by the Central government.
Case Title: Sheetal Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 103
The Bombay High Court denied anticipatory bail application of a woman employee of cooperative bank, who was booked for siphoning off Rs 46.58 lakhs money off the bank's customers, even after she returned the defrauded amount to the bank. Single-judge Justice Rajesh Patil refused to consider the fact that the applicant before him was a. woman and had already returned the Rs 46.58 lakhs to the bank.
Case Tile: Deepak Vallabhdas Intwala vs Casby Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 104
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla ruled that claims under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act must be supported by clear entitlements arising from statute, contract, or custom. The court clarified that a “cease and desist” direction in an order declaring a transfer illegal does not automatically create monetary entitlements. Furthermore, it ruled that Section 33C(2) proceedings cannot be used to establish new rights not determined previously.
Case title: Yuzvendra Chahal vs Nil
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 105
In a relief for Indian cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai to decide the divorce petition filed by him and his estranged wife Dhanashree Verma, latest by Thursday itself, since he will be busy with the upcoming Indian Premiere League (IPL) from March 22.
Case Title: Manmohan Kapani Through Special Power of Attorney Chandani Sood vs Kapani Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 106
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has injuncted the owner of Kapani Resorts and Greater Kailash Property from alienating any interest in the Resorts and the property under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), until the conclusion of arbitral proceedings.
Case Title: Suraj Mishra vs Chief Executive Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 107
In a relief to Union Road Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition challenging his election to the 18th Lok Sabha from the Nagpur constituency, wherein he was accused of resorting to 'malpractices' by printing voter slips with his photos and BJP symbol on it and distributing the same to the voters. Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshii-Phalke dismissed the election petition filed by one Suraj Mishra (30) on the ground that his plea fell short to establish how the alleged practice by Gadkari and his party workers 'materially affected' the election results.
Case Title: Vinod Kachave vs The Presiding Officer (ICC)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 108
Telling a woman colleague that 'you must be using JCB to manage your hair' and singing a song related to her hair, is not sexual harassment under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013, the Bombay High Court held recently while quashing a PoSH Act case against an employee of the HDFC bank. Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne said it is difficult to hold that the conduct of the petitioner Vindo Kachave would amount to sexual harassment.
Case title: Vimal Dagadu Kate vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 109
The Bombay High Court has observed that a suit for recovery of possession of premises cannot be entertained by a Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizen Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It further noted that a senior citizen cannot file such a suit for recovery of possession against another senior citizen under the provisions of the Act, and such an adjudication can be undertaken only before a Civil Court.
Case Title: National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED) vs Roj Enterprises (P) Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 110
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be dismissed merely by stating that the scope of interference is limited; the court must address each ground of challenge and provide reasoned findings.
Case Title: Narayan Pundalik Pathade vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Through Its Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 111
A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe ruled in favor of a retired Municipal Corporation employee, directing payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits. The court held that when retirement benefits are withheld due to pending inquiry and the employee is subsequently exonerated, interest becomes payable from the date following retirement. It clarified that the doctrine of restitution applies in such cases.
Case Title: NTPC BHEL Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs Shree Electricals & Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 112
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna has held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) can be extended to the petitioner who committed delay in filing an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) due to the prevailing legal position at the time of filing, which was subsequently changed.
Case Title: Kailash Chandak vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 113
The Bombay High Court last week quashed a stalking case against a retired professor, who sent an 'obscene and objectionable' message to a female colleague, after noting that the accused was suffering from 'mental imbalance.' A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shriram Modak noted that the complainant woman, too have given her consent to quash the First Information Report (FIR) that she lodged against him with the Malabar Hill Police station.
Case Title: Suresh Raithatha Adult vs Bharti Navnit Raithatha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 114
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil has held that the decision of the Arbitrator to postpone the issue of determining the date of dissolution of the partnership firm to the stage of final hearing cannot be considered perverse for the purpose of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), as it requires evidence to be presented, which is necessary for such an issue to be decided.
Case Title: V C vs N C
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 115
The Bombay High Court has held that a spouse threatening to commit suicide and even attempting the same, would amount to cruelty and it can be a ground for one to seek divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. Justice RM Joshi dismissed the second appeal filed by a woman, who challenged a judgment of a Family Court, which had granted decree of divorce in favour of the husband with a finding that his wife subjected him to cruelty.
Case Title: Anudan Properties Private Ltd. vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region, Slum Rehabilitation Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 116
In a significant ruling, particularly for slum dwellers and also developers, the Bombay High Court recently held that it is the 'statutory obligation' of the developer to pay the transit rent to slum dwellers, who await rehabilitation of their homes. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar upheld the termination of a developer, who was initially engaged for a rehabilitation scheme of a slum in Thane district, after noting that the developer - Anudan Properties Private Ltd. defaulted in paying transit rents to the slum dwellers, since 2019.
Case Title: Sawkash Autorickshaw Union vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 117
The Bombay High Court recently ordered Maharashtra's Transport Commissioner to decide whether the 'open licensing policy' for autorickshaws and taxis–which has been questioned by an autorickshaw union–can be stopped so as to limit the number of autos and taxis in the State.
Case Title: Mohammad Yusuf vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 118
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a detention order of a man after noting the fact that the detaining authority did not serve all the documents pertaining to his detention in 'Urdu' - the language he was only conversant with.
Case Title: Rahul Bacchav vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 119
Observing that after 78 years of independence, the Indian population is wise and educated, the Bombay High Court on Friday permitted a Hindu organisation to organise "Viraat Hindu Sant Sammelan" and confer the "Hindu Veer Puraskar" on right-wing extremist Pragyasingh Thakur, a prime accused in the 2008 Malegaon Bomb Blasts case.
Case Title: Shaikh Sadique Isaq Qureshi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 120
Merely giving speeches about legal awareness and making the members aware about their rights and how to respond when the police comes for an enquiry is not an 'anti-national' activity, the Bombay High Court held on Friday while ordering release of a member of the Popular Front of India (PFI). A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shriram Modak granted bail to Shaikh Sadique Isaq Qureshi, a member of PFI, who was booked for giving various speeches creating legal awareness, being in touch with other members of the PFI, who had prepared a 'roadmap' titled "Roadmap For Regaining Glory of Islam In India By 2047" by which it was aimed to convert India into an Islamic State.
Case Title: Fab Tech Works & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Savvology Games Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 121
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the mere invocation of Section 9 and Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not amount to parallel proceedings. Further, the High Court noted that Section 9 is intended to provide interim relief to safeguard the subject matter of arbitration. On the other hand, Section 11 is limited to the appointment of an arbitrator when there is a dispute regarding the arbitration agreement.
Case title: Dabur India Ltd vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 122
Dabur India Ltd submitted an affidavit before the Bombay High Court that it would no longer use 'anti-inflammatory', 'anti-bacterial' and 'analgesic' on its toothpastes, in view of an order by the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Government of Maharashtra. A division bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Advait Sethna accepted Dabur's statement that it would remove the said labels. It stated that with effect from June 2025, the product ought not to be manufactured or sold with the said labels either on the box or on the products.
Case Title: Accelerate Productx Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 123
While observing that the concept of '24x7' shops have become a popular one worldwide, the Bombay High Court permitted a convenience retail store in Pune to operate 24x7. The bench noted that State while recognising such advantages and to achieve progress commensurate with the global standards, has not imposed any kind of restrictions on the timings of such stores.
Case title: Yash Charitable Trust vs State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 124
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the enactment of State Rules under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. During the hearing, the State counsel submitted that the Maharashtra State Rights Of Persons With Disability Rules, 2024, were framed by the State government by exercising power under Section 101 of the 2016 Act.
Case Title: Lakhani's Blue Waves Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs The Chairman, CIDCO
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 125
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently held that the citizens do not have a fundamental right to be cremated or buried at a specific place. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata ordered the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) to remove a crematorium constructed nearby residential societies, shops, a school and a playground on a few plots in sector 9 of Navi Mumbai's Ulwe area.
Case title: Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University Law School vs State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 126
In a challenge to an inspection notice issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI), the Bombay High Court has held that the notice is valid and that the Rules of Legal Education 2008 framed by the BCI under which it can inspect law colleges is not ultra vires. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Makarand Karnik observed that the Rules under which the BCI is empowered to inspect law colleges does not violate Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and noted that the impugned notice was neither arbitrary nor illegal.
Case Title: Ambit Urbanspace vs Poddar Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 127
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that Eviction of tenants governed by the Rent Control Act cannot be sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), particularly when they are not parties to the Development Agreement executed between the Developer and the Landlords and are not being provided upgraded premises in the redeveloped building compared to what they currently occupy under the tenancy agreements.
Case title: Shahbaz Mumtaz Khan vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 128
The Bombay High Court has observed that a tender prescribing a condition that a younger candidate would be preferred over an older candidate in case of a tie-breaker is discriminatory and arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: ST vs Commissioner, Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 129
Even if a father has not seen the face of the child since its birth and is addicted to vices, does not give a right to the mother to become a single parent and mask the paternity of the child in its birth record, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Mangesh Patil and Yanshivraj Khobragade said parents embroiled in matrimonial disputes, cannot claim right over the child's birth record, just to 'satisfy their egos.' The bench therefore, imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on a woman, who sought to remove her husband's name from their child's birth records.
Case Title: Anil Ambani vs Deputy Director of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 130
In a setback for industrialist Anil Ambani, the Bombay High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on him for seeking an urgent hearing of his petition challenging the April 2022 notice issued to him by the Income Tax Department. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain said it cannot consider the 'artificial urgency' made up by Ambani, who urged the judges to urgently hear his challenge to the show cause notice issued to him by the IT Department, way back in April 2022.
Case title: Rohan Vishwas Kulkarni vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 131
While upholding the discharge of an accused under the Maharashtra Black Magic Act, the Bombay High Court observed that the object of the Act is to curb harmful practices such as human sacrifice or fraudulent rituals and not legitimate religious practices.
Case Title: Santanu Sengupta vs Macrotech Developers Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 132
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan the developer of Lodha World Towers in a petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) has been directed to charge the Federation Common Area Maintenance (FCAM) Charges at the rate agreed upon in the agreement executed between the parties, until the arbitral proceedings are completed.
Case Title: Samarth Constructions vs Pushpa Mate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 133
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Friday emphasized on the purpose of Consumer Protection Act stating that the intent and framework of the legislation is to ensure that the "untrained, unwary" consumers are not deprived of their legal rights because of the 'unequal' bargaining power.
Case Title: Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund vs Neelkanth Realty Private Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 134
The Bombay High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Makarand Karnik has held that an arbitrator is not permitted to decide the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue without first recording a finding as to whether it is a mixed question of law and fact that requires evidence to be led.
Case Title: Anna Maruti Shinde vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 135
The Bombay High Court ordered SIT probe into five policemen allegedly involved in the Badlapur 'fake' encounter case. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale said that a refusal to investigate a crime undermines the Rule of Law, erodes public faith in justice, and allows perpetrators to go unpunished.
FIR Lodged & Investigation Underway: Bombay High Court Disposes PIL Alleging Mid-Day Meal Scam
Case title: Bharat Ramji Thakkar vs Union Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 136
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning an alleged scam in the distribution of food grains under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, noting that a First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged and an investigation is underway.
Case Title: Arun Hastimal Firodia vs The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 137
A single judge bench of Justice Yanshivraj Khobragade upheld the issuance of criminal process against the Chairman of Kinetic Engineering Ltd., for failing to implement a Labor Court judgment. The court rejected the argument that a Chairman cannot be held responsible for compliance with court orders. The court clarified that persons in positions of control and supervision over an industrial establishment's affairs are obligated to implement court judgments even when appeals are pending without a stay order.
Case Title: PV vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 138
Once a marriage is legally registered and a couple establishes sexual relations, the husband cannot be booked for rape because he did not fulfill his 'promise to marry the wife as per religious customs', the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court, held recently.
Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL On Alleged Illegalities In Govt Tender For Supply Of Ambulances
Case title: Contract for Emergency Medical Services vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 139
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition concerning alleged illegalities in the state government tender process for the supply and operation of emergency medical services and ambulances.
Case title: Harshvardhan Navnath Khandekar vs State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 140
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that raised apprehension that the Maharashtra government would take coercive action against those who shared Kunal Kamra's comedy clip, where he made the "gaddar" comment purportedly against Maharashtra's Deputy CM Eknath Shinde.
Case Title: M/s. Mehta & Co. vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 141
The Bombay High Court recently imposed Rs 2 lakh costs on the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) for high-handedly demolishing a structure which was used to provide temporary shelter and food for the cancer patients taking treatment in the city's Tata Memorial Hospital.
Case title: Nivritti Pandurang Nale vs Uttam Ganu Nale
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 142
The Bombay High Court has observed that mere registration of an adopted deed cannot give rise to a presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. It noted that the presumption under Section 16 is conditional upon the signing of the deed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption.
Case title: Tanaji Shivaji Solankar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 143
The Bombay High Court has observed that causing injury by biting with human teeth constitutes 'voluntarily causing hurt' under Section 323 IPC rather than Section 324 IPC as human teeth cannot be considered as a 'weapon'.
Case Title: Central Depositories Services (India) Limited vs Ketan Lalit Shah .
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 144
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale has held that the arbitrator can allow the parties to withdraw their claims to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings by issuing a new notice of arbitration, provided that the legitimate interests of the other party are not prejudiced.
Case title: Ballam Trifla Singh vs Gyan Prakash Shukla
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 145
The Bombay High Court has directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to hold an enquiry regarding the conduct of an advocate, who sought adjournment despite the case being listed for passing order. Remarking that the counsel acted as a “mouthpiece” of his client, Justice Madhav Jamdar observed that advocates' first duty is towards the court and that advocates are not the agents of their clients.
Case Title: Prof Dr. Nikhil Datar vs. State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 146
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a PIL that sought directions to ensure compliance with a Supreme Court order regarding a mechanism for enforcing 'living wills', taking into account the State government's submission that it has taken steps to comply with the Apex Court's directions. The PIL sought the proper implementation of the Supreme Court's directives on passive euthanasia in Common Cause v. Union of India (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 79).
Case title: High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own Motion vs MCGM
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 147
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (April 17) asked has directed the State Advisory Board On Disability to expeditiously consider the grievances of differently abled people with respect to accessibility at bus stops. The PIL sought the implementation of the 'Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment, 2021' concerning bus stops and terminals in Mumbai.
Case Title: SJK Buildcon LLP vs Kusum Pandurang Keni
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 148
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) cannot be invoked to circumvent the statutory protection afforded to tenants under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“Rent Act”). Interim measures under Section 9 must aid arbitral proceedings and cannot override or conflict with special statutory mechanisms under the Rent Act for eviction and redevelopment.
Case Title: Bholashankar Ramsuresh Dubey vs Dinesh Narayan Tiwari
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 149
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Nizamoodin Jamadar has held that the dispute cannot be refused referral to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) based solely on mere allegations of fraud simpliciter, unless serious allegations of fraud that go to the root of the partnership deed containing the arbitration clause are established.
Case Title: Brijesh Barot vs Registrar General, High Court
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 150
The Bombay High Court recently took strong objection to an advocate accusing the judges of acting "hand in glove" with the respondent and therefore, recused from hearing the case. The judges also issued a show-cause notice for criminal contempt of court to the said advocate and further ordered the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) to conduct enquiry against the advocate.
Case Title: Elite Housing LLP vs The Spectrum CHS Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 151
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that objections related to the terms of the redevelopment agreement raised by members of the society can be decided only by the appropriate forum having jurisdiction over such issues. These matters cannot be adjudicated under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case title: Al-Quraish Human Welfare Association vs The State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 152
The Maharashtra Government informed the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (April 22) that it has constituted a committee headed by a former judge of the high court to lay down guidelines for the slaughter of animals which are 'not useful' for certain purposes provided under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act.
Bombay High Court Sentences Woman To One Week Prison For “Dog Mafia” Comment Against Judges
Case Title: High Court On Its Own Motion vs Vineeta Srinandan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 153
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday convicted a woman under charge of criminal contempt of court for calling the court "dog mafia" and making "objectionable" comments against the court and also the judges over their order in favour of dog feeders in a case pertaining to a dispute between a Navi Mumbai-based society and dog feeders.
Case Title: Arun Hastimal Firodia vs The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 154
A single judge bench of Justice Yanshivraj Khobragade upheld the issuance of criminal process against the Chairman of Kinetic Engineering Ltd., for failing to implement a Labor Court judgment. The court rejected the argument that a Chairman cannot be held responsible for compliance with court orders. The court clarified that persons in positions of control and supervision over an industrial establishment's affairs are obligated to implement court judgments even when appeals are pending without a stay order.
Payment Of Gratuity Delayed Beyond One Month Of Retirement, Attracts 10% Interest: Bombay HC
Case Title: Chetana Rajput vs Modern Education Society
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 155
A division bench comprising of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe held that Nowrosjee Wadia College had to pay gratuity with 10% interest to a retired teacher, as their retirement benefits had been delayed without justification. The court held that educational institutions cannot withhold gratuity for more than one month, even if there are disputes over the pension calculation.
Case Title: Technova Imaging Systems Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 156
The Bombay High Court stated that amalgamated company can adjust written down of assets of amalgamating companies and claim depreciation without central government's approval.
Case title: Sharmila Ghuge vs University of Mumbai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 157
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (April 24) disposed of a PIL that sought enforcement of mandatory attendance requirements among law students enrolled in various colleges affiliated with the Mumbai University. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Makarand Karnik did so after noting that the PIL petitioner did not provide any details of the colleges where students are allowed to take examinations without complying with the mandatory attendance requirement.
Unilateral Option To Terminate Arbitration Agreement Does Not Render It Illegal: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Tata Capital Limited vs Vijay Devij Aiya
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 158
The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan while disposing an application for appointment of arbitrator has observed that an arbitration clause which gives option to only one party to opt out of the arbitration agreement is not invalid per se. Such arbitration agreement can be saved by eliminating the unilateral option or by making such right bilateral.
Only Triple Talaq Is Prohibited, Not Talaq-e-Ahsan: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Tanveer Ahmed Patel vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 159
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 23) held that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 only prohibits the instantaneous and irrevocable "Triple Talaq" also known as "Talaq-e-biddat" but does not prohibit the traditional mode of divorce under Islam known as "Talaq-e-Ahsan."
Case title: Cyril Ribeiro vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 160
The Bombay High Court has observed that a Government allottee who does not hold a 'legal occupation or possession' of a property under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 cannot be considered as a 'deemed tenant' under Section 27 of the Act.
Case Title: Sheikh Ibrahim vs Sheikh Rehman
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 161
A Muslim father, who transfers his property to his son as a gift known as 'Hiba' under the Islamic Law, can continue to reside in the said property along with his son and need not leave the said residence as the law does not mandate delivery of 'actual and physical' possession of the property other it only provides for 'constructive possession', the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held, recently.
Case Title: IMAX Corporation vs E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 162
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Milind Sathaye has observed that when a common arbitration petition seeking recognition, enforcement and execution of a foreign award is declined against all the respondents, the mere fact that some respondents had successfully filed chamber summons seeking deletion of their names would not render the appeal filed under Section 50(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as not maintainable.
Case Title: Dr. V.N. Madhu vs S.S. & L.S. Patkar-Varde College
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 163
A division bench consisting of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe dismissed a writ petition that prayed for the counting of earlier service in pension calculations. The court held that any reappointment made after terminating the previous service cannot be linked to the earlier service period. The court explained that if previous service was terminated, the reappointment made after proper selection process is considered afresh for pension calculations.
Religion Is One Consideration In Custody Matter But Welfare Of Child Paramount: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sahil Gilani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 164
The Bombay High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by the second husband of popular fashion entrepreneur and social media influencer Pernia Qureshi, who sought the custody of their three year old daughter. A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shriram Modak reiterated that though religion is one of the considerations in child custody matters, yet the welfare of the child is always paramount.
Case Title: Indiabulls Infraestate Ltd. vs Imagine Realty Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 165
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that even though the term "substitution" is mentioned under Section 29-A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), an arbitrator cannot be substituted in an application under this section unless the grounds specified in Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration Act are satisfied, which outline the conditions under which an arbitrator may be substituted.
Case title: UTO Nederland B. V. vs Tilaknagar Industries Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 166
The Bombay High Court has observed that an order of temporary injunction is not a prima facie adjudication on the subject matter or merits of the case, but an exercise of discretion by the court. The Court did so while answering a reference between conflicting decisions of division benches of the high court in Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr vs. Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd (2005) and Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd. vs. Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad (2012) as well as Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. vs. Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors (2014).
Case Title: Sabina Lakdawala vs Feroze Lakdawala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 167
The Bombay High Court ordered the Mumbai Police to conduct an enquiry into the conduct of an advocate, who called the wife of a sitting judge for a property dealing and insisting on "cash transaction." Single-judge Justice Madhav Jamdar in his jam-packed court hall, disclosed that an attempt was being made to "frame the court" after it passed an order against advocate Vijay Kurle on April 9, for his misconduct in the court.
Case Title: Bramhanand Naikwadi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 168
The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash a letter issued by a Sessions Court in Beed district to the Director General of Police (DGP), Maharashtra to frame 'Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for police officials to maintain decorum in the court while recording evidence through video conferencing facility. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale dismissed the petition filed by Bramhanand Naikwadi, the Senior Police Inspector at Nerul Police Station in Navi Mumbai, who while recording his testimony in a criminal case through VC (on his mobile phone) kept muting his mic, spoke to people around him and on being 'admonished' he 'laughed' at the judge.
Bar Associations Are Not "State" Under Article 12 Of The Constitution Of India: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Abhijeet Bacche-Patil vs Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 169
Bar Associations if held to be a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it would certainly lead to a "chaotic" situation, the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna dismissed the petition filed by four advocates challenging the notice issued by the Kolhapur District Bar Association (KDBA), by which it asked its members to pay their membership fees by April 1, 2025, else they would not be eligible for casting votes in the upcoming bar elections.
Case Title: Harshad Bhoite vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 170
The Bombay High Court while observing that the human need for organ transplant is a facet of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, ordered the Zonal Transplant Coordination Centre at Pune and the Maharashtra government to consider whether a separate registration facility could be provided to the category of patients, who may not be on dialysis or any other procedure but in future may imminently need a an organ transplant. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna ordered the authorities to file their responses to the petition filed by one Harshad Bhoite, a Pune resident, who petitioned the bench against the decision of the Zonal Transplant Coordination Centre at Pune, which refused to register him for organ transplant.
Case Title: Maheshwari Shanmugam Pillay vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 171
A Bombay High Court division bench consisting of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe allowed a writ petition that was filed by a widow asking for interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits to her late husband. The court ruled that when an employee is acquitted or exonerated in disciplinary proceedings, the retirement benefits ought to be paid along with interest from the date of retirement. Further, the court rejected the argument that there was no liability to pay interest. The court held that even if the proceedings are abated, interest ought to be paid.
Case Title: Sumitra Khane vs Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 172
The Bombay High Court has said that in a civilised society there is no place for discrimination in the application of law and a citizen cannot be deprived of his or her rights just because s/he did not approach the courts or the authorities in time. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan directed the Maharashtra government to pay the appropriate amount to some families in Kolhapur district, whose lands were acquired way back in September 1990 for the Dudhganga Irrigation Project.
Case Title: Kapil Satish Phalke vs The Sub Divisional Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 173
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that power of remand cannot be exercised in a routine manner, and a matter may be remanded only if the original authority has failed to consider a material evidence, where either re-evaluation of evidence is required or wherein parties are to be permitted to lead fresh evidence The court further underscored that power of remand in absence of compelling legal necessity leads to delay in resolving disputes and thus remand should not be ordered when the record is sufficient.
Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Lawyer For Using Word 'Bhangi'
Case Title: Kedar Bhusari vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 174
The Bombay High Court while quashing an FIR lodged against an advocate for using the term 'Bhangi', recently said that though the Maharashtra government has by way of a circular replaced the said term with 'Rukhi' or 'Walmiki' but the said word is still used in the Constitution of India for providing benefits to Sweepers. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh said the Maharashtra government's circular issued on November 9, 2000, by which the State precluded the use of the word 'Bhangi' in daily transactions and communications and replaced it with the words 'Rukhi' or 'Walmiki' does not apply on the words used in the Constitution.
Bombay High Court Refuses To Lift Stay On Release Of Film 'Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar'
Case Title: Sanjay Girish Kumar Singh vs Karan Johar alias Rahul Johar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 175
The Bombay High Court has upheld a March 7, 2025 judgment of a single-judge, who refused to lift the stay on the release of the film 'Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar' which was imposed in June 2024 after noting that the same infringes the personality rights of Bollywood film director and producer Karan Johar. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Makarand Karnik heard the appeal filed by the makers of the film in question, who challenged Justice Riyaz Chagla's March 7 2025 judgment, by which the single-judge had made absolute an interim order passed on June 13, 2024, staying the release of the film.
Case Title: Amol Nikam vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 176
The Bombay High Court recently took suo motu cognisance of the 'dangerous culture' of police officers 'copy-pasting' statements of witnesses in criminal cases while investigating even serious offences. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh slammed the Maharashtra Police for resorting to 'copy-pasting' statements of witnesses and remarked that the same is dangerous and can affect even genuine cases.
Case Title: Satyaswarup Meshram vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 177
The Bombay High Court recently quashed an 'outraging modesty' FIR lodged against an Assistant General Manager of the State Bank of India (SBI) who was booked for telling a senior woman clerk that "she should convince the clients as she convince her husband."A division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Pravin Patil while quashing the FIR observed that there was no intention on part of the petitioner - Satyaswarup Meshram, as whatever he uttered was only for enhancing the complainant woman's performance.
Case Title: Maksud Sheikh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 178
"A woman's character or morals are not related to the number of sexual partners she has had", said the Bombay High Court while emphasising that a 'No' by a woman means a 'No' and there is no 'presumption of consent' based on a woman's so called 'immoral activities.' In a strongly-worded order, a division bench of Justices Nitin Suryawanshi and Mahendra Chandwani upheld the conviction of three men - Wasim Khan, Kadir Sheikh and a juvenile in conflict with law, of gang-raping a woman, who had intimacy with one of the accused earlier but had later started living in a live-in relationship with another man. The accused had challenged a sessions court order which had convicted them for various offences including Section 376D IPC (gang rape).
Case Title: Vasantrao Shamrao Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 179
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court held that the Maharashtra Government Resolution (GR) issued on January 22, 2015, which allows the parents of a 'single' or 'unmarried' son or daughter to receive family pension post the child's death, should be made applicable retrospectively to the extent that 'dependent' parents surviving on the date when the GR was issued, are granted the benefit. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe granted a major relief to a septuagenarian couple, which had been fighting for their right to seek their only son's pension for survival since last 15 years.
Case Title: M/s. Aakansha Construction Company v. The State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 180
The Bombay High Court has allowed a plea challenging an order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City, whereby it issued certificate of Deemed Conveyance of land measuring 2120.25 sq.mtrs. in favour of Torana Co-operative Housing Society, which the petitioners termed as a violation of principles of res-judicata.
Case Title: Jupicos Entertainment Private Limited Versus Probability Sports (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 181
The Bombay High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Makarand Karnik has held that when a party is aware of a termination notice issued by the other party and conducts itself on the assumption that the termination has taken effect, it cannot later seek interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) on the ground that the other party is proceeding to assign the subject matter of the contract to a third party and should therefore be restrained.
Case Title: Rizvi Education Society vs The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 182
The Bombay High Court stated that amalgamation of two trusts are not germane for inquiry to be conducted under Section 50A Of Trusts Act. Further, the bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh disagreed that the publication of notice in official Gazette is sought to be elevated to the status of a jurisdictional condition for exercise of power under Section 50A(2).
Case Title: Rameshwar Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 183
The Bombay High Court stated that no clause in a private agreement can nullify a statutory right under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act), nor can it be the sole foundation for an administrative action of such severity as deregistration. In this case, the issue before the bench was whether an apex cooperative housing association validly registered under Section 154B of the MCS Act, consisting of duly registered societies of flat purchasers, can be deregistered on the objection of a developer who failed to fulfill his statutory duties under Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA).
Case Title: Girish Dattatray Mahajan vs Anil Thatte
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 184
The Bombay High Court recently ordered taking down of six videos videos allegedly defaming BJP leader and Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Girish Mahajan, which were uploaded by two YouTubers, both of whom are journalists. Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor also restrained journalists Anil Thatte and Shyam Giri, who own YouTube channels - Anil Gaganbhedi Thatte and Mudda Bharat Ka, respectively.
Case Title: Reshu Singh vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 185
If an educational institution is founded on the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, it must be treat all its employees 'fairly' without any 'exploitation', observed the Bombay High Court recently while confirming the appointment of a teacher, who was compelled to work on probation for nearly seven years. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe noted that the petitioner Reshu Singh was appointed as an Assistant Professor at Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan's Mumbadevi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalay, on June 20, 2018 on a two year probation period. Despite her completing the two years probation, she was not confirmed which compelled her to petition the High Court.
Case Title: Pandit Vithal Landage vs Vishnu Govind Pawar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 186
The Bombay High Court stated that court commissioner can be appointed at pre-mature stage under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC in encroachment and boundary dispute.
Case Title: Vitthal Thaku Jagdale vs Nitin Suresh Kadam
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 187
The Bombay High Court stated that mere tenant's non-cultivation of land personally does not amounts to breach of Section 32R of the Tenancy Act. The bench of Justice Amit Borkar was addressing the issue of whether mere failure of the tenant to cultivate the land personally, in absence of proof of abandonment or unlawful transfer of possession, would justify resumption of land under Section 32R of the Tenancy Act.
Case Title: Arjan Motiram Khiani vs Metharam Rijhumal Khiani
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 188
The Bombay High Court while re-visiting Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act has clarified the circumstances under which the Lis Pendens ceases to operate.
Case Title: AAS vs SAS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 189
If there is adequate material on record, a person can be compelled to give voice samples, even in Domestic Violence cases, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently held while allowing a husband's appeal seeking a direction to his wife to provide her voice sample so as to prove her 'extra-marital' affair. Single-judge Justice Shailesh Brahme order a woman to provide her voice specimens within a period of three weeks so that the same could be verified.
Case Title: Ameykumar s/o Nitinchandra Patil vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 190
In-laws telling a woman to divorce her husband so that he can be married to some other girl of a higher caste is not cruelty under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh noted that the allegation against the applicant, the sister-in-law of the complainant woman, was only that she asked the woman to give divorce to her husband (applicant's brother) so that he could be married to a girl of a higher caste since the complainant was of a lower caste.
Case Title: IP vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 191
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently refused to grant any relief to a female law student from the Symbiosis Law School, who was suspended from all 'academic and non-academic' activities of the institution till further orders for posting various 'political' posts on Instagram including one against the recent 'Operation Sindoor' carried out by the Indian Army. Vacation court judge Justice Rohit Joshi noted that the petitioner is a final year law student, who was allegedly found with one Rejaz, an independent journalist and member of Democratic Student Association (DSA), Kerala in a hotel in Nagpur.
Case Title: Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. vs Maha Active Engineers India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 192
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Atul Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh Patil have held that an applicant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) must approach the court with reasonable expedition. Delay of several years without adequate explanation is a material factor that militates against the grant of such relief.
Case Title: Ram Shankar Sinha vs Ritesh V Patel
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 193
The Bombay High Court recently explained the scope of Section 24 (b) read with Section 43(4) Of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Single-judge Justice Madhav Jamdar held that the presumption under clause (b) of explanation to Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act is applicable only when an Application for eviction is filed relating to the premises given on licence for residence. In other proceedings, the said presumption may not apply. Therefore, notwithstanding the non-registration of an Agreement in writing of leave and licence in respect of the premises given for residential use, when an Application under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act is made, the said clause (b) will apply to such an Agreement and it will not be open for the licencee to lead any evidence contrary to the terms and conditions provided in the said Agreement.
Case Title: Balasaheb Gurushantappa Arawat vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 194
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently flagged the 'unfortunate mentality' of the Police Department in the State that everybody must give preference to the work directed by the police or must help the police. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh in its order said the police officers cannot make it compulsory for any citizen or public servant to help them and any refusal to help the police will not be considered as an offence in all situations.
Case Title: Kisanlal Bairudas Jain vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 195
The Division Bench of Bombay High Court comprising Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain allowed writ petitions seeking enhanced solatium under National Highways Act, 1956 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Tarsem Singh and Ors. While doing so the Court rejected the argument of the Respondent that the petitions ought to be dismissed as the Petitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA).
Bombay High Court Quashes NBW Issued Against Actor Arjun Rampal Over 2019 Tax Evasion Case
Case Title: Arjun Amarjeet Rampal vs Income Tax Department
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 196
The Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside a 'non-bailable warrant' issued by the Ballard Pier Magistrate Court in the city against Bollywood actor Arjun Rampal in a 2019 Income Tax evasion case. Vacation Court judge Justice Advait Sethna noted that the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Ballard Pier was 'cryptic' and passed 'without application of mind' as the non-bailable warrant was issued in a case pertaining to a 'bailable offence.'
Case Title: The Board of Mumbai Port Authority vs Official Liquidator of GOL Offshore Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 197
The Bombay High Court stated that the statutory port dues take precedence over all other claims, including those of secured creditors, by virtue of the paramount lien created under Section 64 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and such are to be treated as secured claims being entitled to be paid in priority, even before the secured creditors.
Mother Hiring Maid To Look After Child Not Ground To Deny Custody: Bombay High Court
Case Title: SSK vs ASK
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 198
A mother appointing a maid servant to take care of the child is not a ground to deny her the custody of the said child, the Bombay High Court held recently. Single-judge Justice RM Joshi pointed out that appointing maid servants to take care of children is not an 'uncommon' practice.
Case Title: Celebi Nas Airport Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs Mumbai International Airport
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 199
The Bombay High Court on Monday restrained the Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) from taking a final decision in the bids invited on May 17 to replace Turkey-based Celebi for ground and bridge handling services at city's International airport, till the its (Celebi) challenge to cancellation of security clearance is heard by a regular bench after the summer vacations.
Case Title: KSS vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 200
The Bombay High Court on May 27 orally expressed its "shock" at the Maharashtra Police for arresting a 19-year-old engineering student who reshared a critical social media post on Indian Army's Operation Sindoor.A division bench of Justices Gauri Godse and Somasekhar Sundaresan had in the morning session criticised the State and the college authorities for treating her like a "criminal", instead of making an endaevour to reform her.