Bombay High Court Slams Family Court Judge Who Denied Urgent Hearing For Medical Custody Of Child To Undergo Open Heart SurgeryCase Title: SGT vs NSTCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 201"It is unbecoming of a Judge," remarked the Bombay High Court on May 27 while noting that a Family Court Judge did not grant any urgent hearing to a plea filed by a man seeking interim medical custody of his minor...
Case Title: SGT vs NST
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 201
"It is unbecoming of a Judge," remarked the Bombay High Court on May 27 while noting that a Family Court Judge did not grant any urgent hearing to a plea filed by a man seeking interim medical custody of his minor son, who is supposed to undergo an 'open heart' surgery. Single-judge Justice Rohit Joshi also expressed shock over the conduct of the man's wife (child's mother), who opposed the plea for interim custody and also the request for urgent hearing.
Case Title: Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation vs Union Bank of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 202
The Bombay High Court stated that mortgage in breach of lease covenant not automatically void if consequences are provided in lease deed. The division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Milind Sathaye observed that “the action of BI of creating a mortgage of the leased plot in favour of UBI was without the prior consent of the Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC and thus in violation of Clause 2(t) of the lease deed. Though MIDC sought to invoke its right under Clause 4 of the lease deed by issuing a show cause notice, it did not take any further steps in that regard. Since the consequence of a breach of any covenant of the lease deed has been provided, the creation of the mortgage in breach thereof cannot be treated to be void.”
Case Title: Hanuman Maruti Mandir Deosthan Trust vs Vina Yogesh Doke
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 203
The Bombay High Court stated under the scheme of Maharashtra Public Trust Act it is not permissible to register two separate trusts for single temple. The Bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar observed that “If, the registration of two separate public trusts are permitted with respect to the same trust properties then there will be innumerable problems in the administration of the public trusts. Allowing the registration of two distinct and separate public trusts with respect to the same temple having same properties is not contemplated by the scheme of the said Act.”
Bombay High Court Orders Forthwith Release Of Anchor Group Director Arrested 'Illegally'
Case Title: Hemang Jadavji Shah vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 204
Observing that his arrest was 'completely illegal' the Bombay High Court last week ordered the 'forthwith' release of Anchor Group director Hemang Shah, who was arrested by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Mumbai Police last month, for allegedly duping his elder brother of nearly Rs 9 crore. A vacation court division bench of Justices Dr Neela Gokhale and Firdosh Pooniwalla noted that a detailed order on June 14, 2024, allowing such sacrifice of animals and birds in was allowed in 'a closed and private area' near the Dargah and not in any 'open or public place.'
Case Title: Alka Shrirang Chavan vs Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 205
The Bombay High Court stated that the purchasers during pendency of suit bound by the decree of specific performance. The Bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar observed that “the doctrine of lis pendens show that the need for it arises from the very nature of the jurisdiction of the Courts and their control over the subject matter of litigation so that parties litigating before it may not remove any part of the subject matter outside the power of the Court to deal with it and thus make the proceedings infructuous.”
Case Title: Anirudh Prataprai Nansi vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 206
Refusing full reimbursement of the medical expenses to a public servant, who underwent a critical 'heart transplant' surgery not only violates his fundamental rights but strikes at the very essence of the human rights, said the Bombay High Court while directing Centre to reimburse Rs. 22 Lakhs to a retired Excise and Customs Officer.
Case Title: Rekha P Thapar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 2017
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (June 10) while holding the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) responsible for the death of eight youngster, who died in a tragic fire that broke out in a eatery in Mumbai and therefore ordered the civic body to pay Rs 50 lakh to the families of each of the victims.
Case Title: Santosh Savlaram Morajkar vs Sumitra Savlaram Moraskar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 208
In a significant ruling, the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that whenever an advocate puts in an appearance for any of the parties before a Maintenance Tribunal, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, s/he will have the right to be heard and to plea before the said tribunal.
Case Title: M/s. Krishna Constructions vs Subhash Uttam Dalvi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 209
The Bombay High Court stated that promoter need not seek consent for additional construction if full project disclosed at agreement stage. “Once the entire project is placed before the flat takers at the time of the agreement, then the promoter is not required to obtain prior consent of the flat takers as long as the builder puts up additional construction in accordance with the layout plan, building rules and Development Control Regulations” stated the bench.
Case Title: Ankur Narayan Panwar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 210
Every prisoner must follow the rules and regulations especially the ones pertaining to 'behaviour' and no prisoner can be allowed to bring prohibited articles in the jail, the Bombay High Court held recently while dismissing a plea filed by Ankur Panwar, the convict in the infamous Preeti Rathi Acid Attack case.
Case Title: Anil Dhanraj Jethani vs Firoz Nadiadwala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 211
The Bombay High Court stated that formal service of writ of summons not required in transferred suit if appearance made at interlocutory stage. The Bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja stated that “since the rigours of the Commercial Courts Act and the amended CPC in relation to the service of summons do not apply to transferred Suits and considering that the captioned Suit was a regular Suit filed before the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act to which the Commercial Courts Act become applicable and that the Defendant No.1 had already entered an appearance at the interlocutory stage / filed Vakalatnama, there is no need for the Plaintiffs to thereafter serve a writ of summons as the object of serving writ of summons has been satisfied.”
Case Title: TikTok Limited vs Registrar of Trade Marks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 212
The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash and set aside an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks, which refused to recognise "Tik Tok" as a well known Mark under the Trade Marks Act, noting that the social media application is banned in India.
Voluntarily Abandoning Service Is Not Retrenchment: Bombay HC
Case Title: Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical and Education Society vs Indira Madhukar Muraskar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 213
A single judge bench consisting of Justice Anil Pansare of the Bombay High Court, set aside multiple Industrial Court orders that had directed the reinstatement and back wages of several employees. These employees were absent from duty without notice. The court held that prolonged absence despite repeated calls amounted to voluntary abandonment of service, and not termination. Thus, the court held that retrenchment procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act was not applicable.
Payment Of Gratuity Act Overrides Other State Pension Rules: Bombay HC
Case Title: Chief Executive Officer vs Ganesh Gulabrao Nawale
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 214
Bombay High Court's single judge bench of Justice MS Jawalkar held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('Act'), prevails over the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 ('MCS Rules'), unless a specific exemption is provided under Section 5 of the Act. The court clarified that the mere pendency of proceedings or any minor punishment under the latter, cannot justify withholding gratuity under Section 4(6) of the Act.
Case Title: Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha vs The Registrar of Trade Marks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 215
The Bombay High Court stated that the Registrar of Trademarks must give a reasoned order for pre-acceptance advertisement. Justice Manish Pitale observed that “The Registrar is required to pass a reasoned order as to why a mark is being advertised after acceptance and also a reasoned order as to why a mark is being advertised before acceptance. In fact, the Registrar has the option of directing advertisement of a mark before acceptance under proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act.”
Case Title: Bank of India vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-15, Mumbai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 216
The Bombay High Court held that the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee from RBI cannot be treated as 'interest' chargeable under Section 4 of Income Tax Act. The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne stated that “the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee is not relatable in loan or advance given by the assessee to the RBI and therefore, the amount of subsidy can neither be treated as commitment charges nor discount on promissory notes on bill of exchange drawn or made in India.”
Case Title: Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax Nodal 1 Raigad Division
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 217
The Bombay High Court stated that cash credit account cannot be treated as property of account holder which can be consider under Section 83 of GST Act. The division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the phrase 'including bank account' following the phrase, “any property” would mean a non-cash-credit bank account. Therefore, a “cash credit account” would not be governed by Section 83 of the MGST Act.
Case Title: Purple Products Private Limited vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 218
The Bombay High Court stated that treaty provisions don't override customs law and upheld the show cause notices issued for alleged misuse of import exemptions. The Bench consists of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that based on a treaty provision that is not transformed or incorporated into the national law or statute, the provisions of the existing Customs Act cannot be undermined, or the powers and jurisdiction of the customs authorities questioned.
Case Title: Dr Subhash Ramrao Bhamre vs Election Commission of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 219
Merely because names of dead persons continue to be on the voters list it cannot be presumed that votes have been cast in the name of these dead persons, held the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently while upholding the election of Congress MP Shobha Bacchav from Dhule constituency to the 18th Lok Sabha elections. Single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar dismissed the election petition filed by one Subhash Bhamre, a candidate of Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), who lost to Bacchav.
Case Title: Ambadas Chandrakant Aaretta vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 220
The Bombay High Court recently refused to commute the conviction of a man from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder after noting that the convict acted in a 'cruel' manner by setting his wife ablaze and further not letting anyone to help her. A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shyam Chandak said the convict Ambadas Aaretta acted in a cruel manner and took advantage of the 'vulnerability' of his own wife and children.
Case Title: SDA vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 221
While quashing an FIR lodged against seven members of a family, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court bemoaned the misuse of section 498A at the hands of women by roping in all the family members of the husband in criminal cases only to settle their personal scores. A division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Pravin Patil expressed concern over such a tendency of women implicating all the family members of a husband in criminal cases.
Case Title: Board of Control for Cricket in India vs Kochi Cricket Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 222
The Bombay High Court has upheld an arbitral award granting damages amounting to 538.9 crore to Kochi Cricket Private Limited ("KCPL”), the parent company of defunct IPL franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala. It was held that the Court cannot act as a Court of First Appeal and delve into a fact-finding exercise by revisiting and re-appreciating the record and accepting competing interpretations of the various clauses of the agreements between the parties by invoking the ground of perversity.
Case Title: Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 223
The Bombay High Court has asked the Commissioner of Income Tax to decide whether payment for transponder services constitutes 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(Vi) of Income Tax Act. The division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “the authorities have held the payment to constitute 'royalty' under the domestic law as well as under the Treaty, but by holding the said payment is towards 'royalty' under the Treaty, the revenue has relied upon the definition of 'process' under the domestic law. Therefore, to say that the revenue has only held against the Assessee on the ground of domestic law and not the Treaty is not correct.”
Case Title: Fcbulka Advertising Pvt Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(1)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 224
The Bombay High Court stated that a breach of Article 265 of the constitution cannot be alleged or sustained based upon a tentative or inconclusive opinion formed by assessing officer. The division bench consists of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “If the communication dated 29 November 2018 is an order, it being like a preliminary, prima facie, or interlocutory order and not a final order, the Petitioner cannot base their claim on this communication to allege breach of Article 265 of the Constitution. The communication dated 29 November 2018 is based on preliminary verification and is subject to processing, and therefore, it is in the nature of a preliminary/prima facie/interlocutory order.”
Case Title: M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 225
The Bombay High Court stated that assessing officer do not have the jurisdiction to go behind net profit in profit and loss account except as per explanation to Section 115J Of Income Tax Act. The division bench consists of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Makarand Karnik observed that “Section 115J of the 1961 Act mandates that in case of a company whose total income as computed under the provisions of the Act 1961 is less than 30% of the book profit, the total income chargeable to tax will be 30% of the book profit, as shown in the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the provisions of Part II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act 1956, after certain adjustments.”
Case Title: NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 226 (I)
In a city where inequality is visible in how space and services are distributed, providing formal housing to slum dwellers within the city and not on its outskirts, is a step towards real equality, the Bombay High Court held on Thursday while refusing to strike down Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, (DCPR) 2034, which provides for rehabilitation of slum dwellers on lands encroached, which are reserved as 'open spaces' under the DCPR 2034.
Case Title: NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 226 (II)
In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court while observing that the Constitution of India is a 'living framework' held that the people living in slums or informal settlements are protected by the Constitution. The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034, which provides for rehabilitation of slum dwellers on lands encroached, which are reserved as 'open spaces' under the DCPR 2034.
Case Title: Chetan Kisan Patil vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 227
The Bombay High Court recently held that a person seeking bail on grounds of parity cannot be denied relief merely because the State is contemplating to challenge the order of bail granted to co-accused and therefore, asked the Maharashtra Law and Judiciary Department to ensure that it approves the proposal for filing appeal against an order, within two weeks. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar said the mere intention or contemplation to file an appeal against a bail order does not automatically dilute the legal effect or binding nature of such order unless and until it is stayed, modified, or set aside by a higher forum.
Case Title: Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 228
The Bombay High Court stated that design and engineering services to foreign entities are zero-rated supplies; assessee eligible for refund of unutilized ITC U/S 54 CGST. The Division Bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla observed that assessee is not an agency of the foreign recipient and both are independent and distinct persons. Thus, condition (v) of Section 2(6) is fully satisfied in the case. The assessee is eligible for refund of unutilized ITC on account of zero-rated supplies in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act and the same shall be granted to them along with statutory interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act.
Case Title: XYZ Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Father vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 229
Observing that it cannot force a rape victim to carry her 'unwanted' pregnancy, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently allowed a minor girl to abort her nearly 29 weeks foetus under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Sachin Deshmukh said by forcing he girl to continue with the pregnancy, the State would be 'stripping' her of the right to determine the path of her life.
Case Title: Chandiram Anandram Hemnani vs Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 230
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has recently held that if a son and his wife are permitted by his parents to stay in the house owned by them, it would not confer any right in their favour and they cannot compel the old parents to allow them to reside in the said house, against their (old parents') desire. Single-judge Justice Prafulla Khubalkar said if there is some hostile relations between the son and his wife, the wife cannot claim any right to then stay in the house owned by her parents-in-law.
Bombay High Court Clears Confusion Over Ratan Tata's Shares Not Mentioned In His Will
Case Title: Shireen Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy vs Jamsheed Mehli Poncha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 231
Clearing the air over who will get the 'listed and unlisted' shares owned by late industrialist Ratan Tata, which were not otherwise distributed in his Will, the Bombay High Court last week clarified that such shares will be distributed 'equally' between the Ratan Tata Endowment Foundation and the Ratan Tata Endowment Trust. Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale disposed of the probate proceedings initiated for deciding the legality of Tata's original Will made on February 23, 2022 and further altered or modified through four separate Codicils (Will alterations or additions) with the last one being December 22, 2023.
Case Title: Sudhir Brijendra Jain vs Rajendra Dhedya Gavit
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 232
If a candidate's religion or culture permits polygamy, then he can add an additional column in the Form 26 Affidavit and disclose details of the second spouse and the same act would not disqualify him from contesting elections nor would he be unseated later by virtue of an election petition, held the Bombay High Court on Monday (June 23). Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne upheld the election of Shiv Sena candidate Rajendra Gavit from Palghar Constituency to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly, elections of which were held last year.
Case Title: ABC vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 233
In a unique turn of events, the partner of an unmarried woman, who moved the Bombay High Court seeking to abort her 25 weeks foetus, fearing 'social stigma', has agreed to look after her till she undergoes the procedure under Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act to abort her foetus. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale noted that the 31-year-old woman was 'left in lurch' by 'her own circumstances.'
Case Title: Chetan Ahire vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 234
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (June 25) dismissed a petition challenging elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly which were concluded in November last year, over alleged bogus voting. The petition filed by one Chetan Ahire alleged that over 75 lakh votes were polled after the official closing time of polling (6 PM). He also claimed there were several discrepancies in almost 95 constituencies, wherein the number of votes polled and the number of votes counted, did not match.
Case Title: Union of India Through The General Manager Central Railway vs PLR HC RBR JV
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 235
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that a contractor cannot be denied payment for extra work that, while beyond the original scope of the agreement, was clearly consented to by the other party through its conduct. When such work is accepted, measured, and not objected to contemporaneously, the benefiting party cannot later claim it was beyond the contract's scope. To allow this would amount to unjust enrichment.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 236
The Bombay High Court stated that benefit of cash compensatory scheme benefit cannot be denied on castor oil exports based on subsequent test change. The division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain has observed that contracts executed prior to the cutoff day would not be governed by the subsequent change in the scheme granting the benefit.
Case Title: SKPS vs PSS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 237
Just because a wife is earning does not mean that she can be deprived of the support from her husband with the same standard of living to which she was accustomed to after her marriage, the Bombay High Court held recently. Single-judge Justice Manjusha Deshpande noted that the wife in the instant case, though earning, her income was not sufficient for her own maintenance since she had to travel daily a long distance for her job.
Case Title: Nandkumar Infrastructure LLP vs The Superintendent Engineer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 238
The Bombay High Court has held that the experience of a proprietor who becomes a partner in a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) can be considered for evaluating the LLP's eligibility in a public tender, even in the absence of a notarized business transfer agreement. The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne held that the rejection of the petitioner's bid as “non-responsive” was arbitrary and directed the tendering authority to open the financial bid and proceed with renegotiation between the lowest two bidders.
Case Title: Marico Limited vs Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 239
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief in favour of Marico Limited, restraining Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. and others from using labels, packaging, and bottles that are deceptively similar to the registered trademarks and trade dress of Marico's popular “Parachute,” “Parachute Advanced,” and “Parachute Jasmine” products. Single-judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, while allowing Marico's interim application, held that although the defendant possesses a registered trademark for “Cocoplus,” it was not marketing its products under that registered label. The Court observed that “essential features” of the plaintiff's products had been “slavishly copied.”
Case Title: M/s. Carona Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 240
The Bombay High Court stated that the assessee cannot be penalised under Section 271(1) (c) of income tax act for merely raising a plausible claim. The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne opined that “the claim raised by the Assessee for claiming deduction in respect of the crystalised liability towards additional bonus was a plausible claim. Whether such claim is tenable in law or not is an altogether different issue. What is relevant to note is the position that the claim made by the Assessee can, by no stretch of imagination, be treated as malafide act of concealment of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.”
Case Title: Manoj Lalwani vs Reserve Bank of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 241
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Manoj Lalwani, Director of Ritu Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., challenging HDFC Bank's recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, terming the plea as an "attempt to stall the auction" of secured assets. The division bench of Justices Makarand Karnik and Nitin Borkar found that the petitioner had no locus to file the petition, as the company was already under liquidation following the commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). “Once liquidation has been initiated, all powers of the board of directors vest with the liquidator. The petitioner, as a former director, has no statutory authority to pursue the writ,” the Court noted.
Case Title: Neha Shroff vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 242
The Bombay High Court has held that when circumstances indicate an Indian citizen intends to stay abroad for an uncertain period, the burden to prove otherwise is on the person whose residence in India is under issue. Dismissing a batch of appeals filed by members of the Shroff family, the Court upheld penalties for violation of FERA provisions related to unauthorized transactions in Indian company shares. A division bench comprising Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain ruled that the appellants had failed to rebut the presumption that they were residents outside India during the relevant period, and held that there was sufficient material to establish their intent to stay abroad indefinitely.
Case Title: The Superintending Engineer vs Pundlik Kondiba Pachpinde
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 243
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), consisting of Justice Prafulla Khubalkar dismissed a challenge to a labour court award that provided overtime wages with interest to retired employees. The court held that an employees' right to overtime wages was a pre-existing statutory right under Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, and that it can be enforced through Section 33(c )(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Payment Of Gratuity Act Applies To Zilla Parishad Employees: Bombay HC
Case Title: Zilla Parishad vs Pradeep Bhaurao Pokale
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 244
A single judge bench of Justice Mukulika Jawalkar held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, applies to Zilla parishad employees. However, the court explained that Section 4(6) of the Act allows the withholding or forfeiture of gratuity if an employee faces criminal proceedings that involve moral turpitude.
Case Title: Farukh Shah vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 245
The Bombay High Court refused to quash an FIR registered against All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader and former MLA Farukh Shah accused of illegally constructing a public square in the name of Tipu Sultan in Dhule by allegedly utilizing public funds. In doing so the court observed that the probe was ongoing to find out as to who had erected the construction and whether permission was taken for the same adding underscoring that public square cannot be named by an MLA without following procedure laid down in law. It also noted that on one hand Shah defended the act of naming the square and on the other hand he was also claiming innocence which cannot go together.
Merely Saying 'I Love You' Without Any Sexual Intent Is Not Sexual Harassment: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ravindra s/o Laxman Narete vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 246
Merely expressing 'I Love You' does not by itself amount to an offence of sexual harassment if not accompanied with words or acts reflecting 'sexual intent' the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held on June 30. Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke noted that the accused in the instant case had only said 'I Love You' to the minor girl, while she was on her way home from tuition classes and even insisted her to disclose her name, once.
Case Title: Rupali P Shah vs Adani Wilmar Ltd.
Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 247
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a copyright infringement suit filed by the daughter of late Bollywood producer O.P. Ralhan, holding that the rights to exploit songs from his films were validly assigned in perpetuity and not restricted to any particular medium, such as physical records. Justice Manish Pitale, deciding the suit filed by Rupali P. Shah, held that the assignment agreements executed by Ralhan in favour of the predecessor of defendant No.2 (Adani Wilmar Ltd.) granted perpetual and wide-ranging rights that included the right to exploit musical works “by any and every means whatsoever.” The Court rejected the plaintiff's claim that the agreements only permitted exploitation through physical media such as gramophone records.
Case Title: Microfibers Pvt. Ltd. vs Yes Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 248
The Bombay High Court has held that a bank could not have insisted on Aadhaar as a mandatory requirement for opening a bank account after the Supreme Court's verdict in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018), and awarded ₹50,000 in compensation to a company whose account was delayed due to the bank persisting on its demand of Aadhar Card. The division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain was hearing a writ petition filed by Microfibers Pvt. Ltd., which had approached the Court in 2018 after Yes Bank Ltd. declined to open a bank account without an Aadhaar card. The petitioner contended that the requirement was unlawful and in violation of interim orders of the Supreme Court that were in effect at the time.
Case Title: Dnyaneshwar S/o Vishnu Surywanshi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 249
A 'compromise' arrived in a rape case is against the interest of the society and thus cannot be accepted to quash FIR against the accused, held the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court, recently, while refusing to quash a rape case filed against a two men. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh refused to accept the contention of the complainant woman that she and the accused are 'close friends' and she lodged the FIR due to some 'misunderstanding.'
Case Title: M/s. Vivienda Luxury Homes LLP vs M/s. Gregory & Nicholas
Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 250
The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that a party cannot confer jurisdiction on a civil court through an amendment of pleadings that would fundamentally alter the nature of the dispute. Dismissing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court upheld the trial court's refusal to allow amendment of pleadings before deciding the respondent's application for return of the plaint due to lack of jurisdiction.
Case Title: Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 251
The Bombay High Court has held that the period of pre-arrest medical examination cannot be excluded from the 24-hour timeline for producing an arrestee before a Magistrate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the CrPC. It declared the arrest of the accused illegal and ordered his release, observing that he was not produced before the Magistrate within the required time of 24 hours.
Case Title: Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 252
The Bombay High Court has held that payment of stamp duty under the Maharashtra Stamp Duty Amnesty Scheme, 2023, cannot override the statutory time limits prescribed under the Registration Act, 1908, for presentation of documents. It dismissed a petition challenging the refusal to register a 1987 Development-cum-Sale Agreement despite payment of stamp duty under the Amnesty Scheme.
Case Title: Saravana Prasad vs Endemol India Private Limited
Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 253
The Bombay High Court has observed that sole director of a One Person Company (“OPC”), cannot be treated parallelly with the separate legal entity. The court set aside the directions in the impugned order dated 10/07/2024 directing Mr. Saravana Prasad ("Prasad") to deposit Rs. 10.40 crores in a fixed deposit, and disclose all assets and all encumbrances, charges and attachments, and disclosure of all details of all companies and firms in which they are shareholder, director or partners. The bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the view of the arbitral tribunal to deposit the dues in a fixed deposit of a nationalised and secure it till the completion of the arbitral proceedings is a plausible view and does not warrant any interference u/s 17 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: Jan Mukti Morcha vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 254
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a batch of Public Interest Litigations challenging the decision to establish the Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak at the site of the Mayor's Bungalow in Shivaji Park, Dadar. The Court held that the choice of site, formation of the managing trust, and other consequential actions were well within the State's policy domain and followed due process. The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne delivered its verdict in four PILs filed opposing the State Government's decisions and statutory amendments enabling the memorial's construction.
Case Title: Vast Media Network Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 255
The Bombay High Court has held that a tender clause granting preference to bidders applying for a higher number of warehouses cannot be extended to the Central Store Office if the tender document draws a clear distinction between the two categories. The Court quashed the lease awarded to one bidder and restored the tender process.
Case Title: Mayur Raju Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 256
The Bombay High Court recently held that in serious cases covered under special statute like the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO), courts should not have a 'liberal' approach and grant bail to an accused. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar observed that though every accused has a fundamental right to liberty but the same cannot be said to be an 'absolute right.'
Case Title: Bajaj Auto Limited vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 257
The Bombay High Court has stated that sales tax incentive under a government scheme for industrial promotion is a capital receipt, not taxable. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne were addressing the issue of whether an incentive received in sales tax liability under a Scheme formulated by the State Government would be on the capital account, exempt from taxation, or on the revenue account, liable for taxation.
Case Title: Sonal Vaibhav Sawant vs Union of India
Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 258
The Bombay High Court has held that the legal representative of a dependent of a deceased passenger is entitled to receive compensation under the Railways Act, 1989, even if the dependent dies during the pendency of proceedings. The Court observed that such compensation partakes the character of the deceased dependent's estate and does not abate with their death.
Case Title: Sujal Mangala Birwadkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 259
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a student's plea seeking a caste validity certificate under the Scheduled Caste category based on his mother's caste, holding that there was no material to show he suffered any discrimination, deprivation, or disadvantage to warrant such recognition. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale was hearing a writ petition filed by Sujal Mangala Birwadkar challenging the order dated April 15, 2024, passed by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, which had rejected his claim for recognition as belonging to the Chambhar (SC) community.
Case Title: UNS Women Legal Association (Regd) vs Bar Council of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 260
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) 2013 (POSH Act) will not apply on the complaints lodged by female advocate members of the Bar Council of India (BCI) or the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) against other advocates. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne held that the provisions of the POSH Act will not apply to the complaints of female lawyer members of the BCI and BCMG as there is no "employee-employer" relationship between them.
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 261
The Bombay High Court stated that reassessment under Section 147 Income Tax Act beyond 4 years requires specific non-disclosure by assessee, not mere bald allegations. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for the reopening of assessment proceedings. This section gives discretion to the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the assessment proceedings when he/she has reason to believe that some of the income has escaped assessment.
Case Title: Srinwati Mukherji vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 262
A flat under construction, though registered jointly in the name of the spouses, cannot be termed a 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV) 2005 and thus, a husband cannot be directed to pay instalments of such a flat, held the Bombay High Court recently. Justice Manjusha Deshpande noted that the flat in question was still under construction and that the couple has not resided in the same yet.
Case Title: Ritesh Haldar vs Elite Housing LLP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 263
The Bombay High Court has held that a woman in possession of a flat, though claimed to be a gratuitous licensee by the registered owner, cannot be dispossessed merely on account of redevelopment proceedings. The Court modified the directions issued by the Single Judge and directed that she be put back in possession of the redeveloped flat and receive transit rent, while the registered owner would execute the redevelopment agreement and receive the corpus amount.
Case Title: M/s. Skypak Services Specialists Limited vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 264
The Bombay High Court has upheld the licence cancellation of a courier agency for clearing imports without authorisation by stating that any such exercise of discretion of leniency will only encourage persons to commit the offence by taking recourse to the services of the courier agencies. A bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “the petitioner has been negligent in carrying out its obligation under the 1998 Regulations. These obligations are cast on the Authorised Courier since the petitioner was engaged in the business of clearance of imports and exports. There is a high degree of responsibility cast upon the petitioner in the discharge of its functions because the repercussions of illegal imports and exports are economically and otherwise also far reaching.”
Case Title: Darshan Singh Parmar vs The Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 265
The Bombay High Court has directed the department to pay informer for assisting in tax evasion recovery. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “If the Government has formulated a reward scheme, it must be implemented fairly and transparently. Informers who take risks and invest time must not be made to run from pillar to post to secure what may be due and payable. There must be no unreasonable delay in paying the determined reward amounts, and the practice of raising frivolous and belated objections only to avoid legitimate payments must also be eschewed.”
Case Title: SKP vs KSP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 266
The Bombay High Court has held that even if a mother agrees to get done the DNA profiling test of her child to ascertain its paternity, the courts must still act as the 'custodian' of the rights of the child and consider the pros and cons of the said test before calling upon the minor to undergo the test.Single-judge Justice RM Joshi said the a child being a minor is not capable of taking decision of agreeing or refusing the DNA test.
Case Title: Nagani Akram Mohammad Shafi vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 267
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (July 8) held that 'predicate offences' lodged under the newly introduced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) can be treated as 'scheduled offences' under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), even if its schedule only refers to the repealed Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Title: Grand Centrum Realty LLP vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 268
The Bombay High Court has held that the period during which a party is restrained by a court order, from executing or registering a document must be excluded while computing the time limit for presentation under the Registration Act, 1908. The Court accordingly directed the registration of two agreements for sale executed in 2018, rejecting the Registrar's refusal on the ground of limitation. The division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale was hearing writ petitions filed under Article 226 by Grand Centrum Realty LLP, which had entered into two agreements for sale dated March 6, 2018, with a public charitable trust.
Case Title: Shramik Co-operative Housing Society vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 269
The Bombay High Court has held that once a municipal corporation has assured landowners Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in lieu of land acquired for a public project, it is constitutionally and statutorily bound to honour the commitment. The Court quashed the Nagpur Municipal Corporation's 2024 refusal to confer TDR, directing it to issue the same as previously assured in 2001.
Case Title:MJ Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 270
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a provision for doubtful debts cannot be treated as either a "reserve" or a "provision for liability" under clauses (b) or (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus cannot be added back to the book profits for the purpose of minimum alternate tax (MAT). The Court accordingly overturned the addition of ₹2.49 crore made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Tribunal.
Case Title: M/s. Poonawalla Estate Stud & Agricultural Farm vs Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 271
The Bombay High Court held that insurance claim received on dead horses is capital receipt, not taxable as income under Section 41(1) Of Income Tax Act. The bench opined that horses in respect of which the insurance claim was received were Assessee's capital assets and that therefore insurance receipt arising therefrom could only have been considered as capital receipt, not chargeable to tax.
Case Title: PVR Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 272
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Thursday quashed two Government Orders (GOs) issued on April 4, 2013 and March 18, 2014 by which the Maharashtra government restricted cinema owners from levying service charge or convenience fees on online tickets. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain held that the said GOs violated the right to practice any profession.
Case Title: Raghavendra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 273
The Bombay High Court has quashed the sanction of a new road line (RL) by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) under Section 291 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC), holding that the move was taken without application of mind and in violation of the landowner's right to be heard.
[Companies Act] Debtor Company Cannot Contest Its Liability For The First Time In Winding-Up Proceedings: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. Bassein Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.
Citation 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 274
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal against the winding-up of a company that defaulted on dues owed to a government enterprise and had no ongoing business activity or assets. The Court rejected the company's defence that there was a “bonafide dispute” over the debt, holding that the company's objections were afterthoughts and that its inability to pay was well established.
Case Title: M/s. Galaxy International vs Union of India
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 275
The Bombay High Court held that a GST notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act can't be issued directly to the bank. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act was not addressed to the assessee but directly to the bank.
Case Title: Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Central Information Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 276
The Bombay High Court has held that before disclosing any information related to third parties, including stock exchanges like NSE and BSE, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), the concerned authority must strictly comply with the mandatory procedure laid down in Section 11 of the Act. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain passed the ruling in a batch of writ petitions arising from an RTI application filed by transparency activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal seeking information about SEBI's appointment of public interest directors (PIDs) and inspection reports of institutions like BSE, NSE, and MCX.
Case Title: DVM Patel vs State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 277
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 10) while disposing of a petition filed by the trustees of the heritage JN Petit building alleging damages to the structure due to the underground construction work for the Metro III, held that though development works in a city like Mumbai cannot be stopped but the same cannot be permitted to run roughshod over the concerns of preserving and maintaining heritage buildings for posterity.
GST TRAN-I Credit Can Be Revised Based On Manually Filed Excise Return: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 278
The Bombay High Court held that GST TRAN-I credit can be revised based on manually filed ER-1 Return. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “there were technical issues with respect to revising TRAN-1 and non-availability of electronic mode to revise excise return and it is only after directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2022 that the assessee was able to revise its TRAN-1/TRAN-2 by filing manual revised excise return to claim the credit and transitioned under new regime.”
Case Title: GlobeOp Financial Services (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 279
The Bombay High Court held that a GST order can't be a copy-paste of the show cause notice and that independent reasoning must be present. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “simply cutting and pasting the allegatio ot inspire confidence that due consideration has been shown to the cause, and the decision is made after its due consideration. Ultimately, these are aspects of natural justice principles that should guide the decision-making process in such cases.”
Case Title: Sujata Vilas Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 280
The guarantee of 'right to life and liberty' cannot be denied to a suspect who is sought to be made an accused on an investigation and it is the obligation of the State and also of the Courts to ensure that there is no infringement of this 'indefeasible' right, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held on Friday. Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, while granting bail to a woman arrested after sunset, said the police must follow the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which describes the manner and the extent to which a person can be deprived of his liberty.
Courts Cannot Mandate Retrospective Correction Of Errors In Legislation: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Aarti Drugs Limited v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 281
The Bombay High Court has held that courts cannot issue writs directing the legislature to correct alleged “clerical errors” in enacted laws or to give retrospective effect to legislative changes. It held that even if a change in the customs tariff is perceived as corrective or clarificatory, granting retrospective effect to such changes falls exclusively within the legislative domain.
Case Title: ARP vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 282
The Bombay High Court recently while quashing a section 498A IPC case against a family observed that marital discords have now-a-days become a menace in the society and that because of the two persons fighting over petty issues, the concept of marriage, which is 'sacrosanct' for Hindus is suffering a setback. A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Mahendra Nerlikar noted the 'trend' of women filing FIR against as many relatives of the husband as possible and said thus there is a need to look at matrimonial discord matters from a 'different' angle.
Case Title: M/s. Unique Integrated Transport & Management Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 283
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the bar of res judicata under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) cannot be invoked for the first time in a final judgment without framing an issue or giving parties an opportunity to respond. It has set aside a single judge's judgment that dismissed a suit invoking res judicata at the decree stage without prior notice.
Case Title: Victorinox India Pvt. Ltd. vs Gute Reise India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 284
The Bombay High Court has directed Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. to immediately delist all Victorinox-branded products being sold by its former dealer, Gute Reise India Pvt. Ltd., in compliance with an arbitral tribunal's interim order. The Court held that online platforms must act swiftly to enforce tribunal directions. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing an urgent commercial arbitration petition filed by Victorinox India Pvt. Ltd., seeking enforcement of an interim order passed under Section 17 by an arbitral tribunal on July 9, 2025.
Case Title: Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 285
The Bombay High Court today dismissed the petitions filed by residents of Colaba, challenging the construction of a Jetty facility in South Mumbai, near Radio Club and adjacent to the iconic Taj Mahal Palace Hotel and near the Gateway of India. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne thus upheld the validity of the decision of the Maharashtra Government and the State's Maritime Board.
Case Title: Sonu Nigam vs Sonu Nigam Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 286
Observing that the right of the citizens to free speech is not an 'unbridled' one, the Bombay High Court last week, while protecting the 'privacy' of Bollywood playback singer Sonu Nigam, directed a lawyer not to use 'Sonu Nigam' as the display name of his account on social media platform X (formerly Twitter). Single-judge Justice Riyaz Chagla asked the lawyer from Bihar, to use his full name 'Sonu Nigam Singh' in his social media accounts in order to ensure that there is no confusion in the minds of the netizens about the the singer Sonu Nigam.
Case Title: Ningbo Aux Imp and Exp Co. Ltd. v. Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 287
The Bombay High Court has held that a foreign arbitral award cannot be enforced against a person who was not a party to the arbitration proceedings. It ruled that forcing such a person to disclose assets or face coercive enforcement would be without jurisdiction under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan passed the ruling while allowing two interim applications filed by Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) and its shareholder (Respondent No. 2) in a commercial enforcement petition filed by Ningbo Aux Imp and Exp Co. Ltd., seeking enforcement of a foreign award passed under an agreement dated October 23, 2020.
Case Title: Ajay Amarchand Chhabria & Anr. v. Amarchand Daulatram Chhabria (HUF)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 288
The Bombay High Court has rejected a request to conduct a medical examination of the elderly woman defendant on the ground that the Court cannot direct a party to undergo a medical examination unless the Court finds it absolutely necessary to determine the core question in controversy. The Court held that when there are serious disputes and conflicting allegations over a defendant's mental condition and transactions involving her property, the Court should appoint a neutral officer as guardian ad litem instead of any interested party.
Case Title: M/s. Patil Roadlines & Ors. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 289
The Bombay High Court has upheld the validity of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.'s (BPCL) tender conditions that provide for reservations and concessions to Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) bidders in petroleum transport contracts, holding that affirmative action need not be restricted to public employment alone.
Case Title: Saraswatibai Gangagoud Anantwar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 290
The Bombay High Court has held that the Collector has inherent power to review administrative orders even in the absence of an express statutory provision, so long as the decision relates to administrative, not quasi-judicial, functions. The Court upheld a 2013 order restoring the names of two partners in a country liquor licence, which had earlier been deleted after the death of the original licensee.
'Elephants' Right To Quality Life Prevails Over Its Use For Religious Customs': Bombay High Court
Case Title: Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak, Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, Math (Karveer) Kolhapur vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 291
In a conflict between the 'right to quality life' of an animal and the right of humans to use the animals, particularly elephants for religious rites, the former must be considered, held the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (July 16) while allowing the transport of an elephant - Mahadevi, from Maharashtra's Kolhapur district to an elephant sanctuary in Gujarat's Jamnagar district. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale rejected a petition filed by Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak, Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, Math (Karveer) Kolhapur - a Jain temple trust, which challenged the order of a High Power Committee (HPC) that had recommended transfer of - Radhe Krishna Elephant Welfare Trust (RKEWT) in Jamnagar.
Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Constitutionality Of UAPA, Sedition Offence
Case Title: Anil Babura Baile vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 292
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and also of the section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale while pronouncing their judgment today said, "The UAPA in its present form is constitutionally valid...Challenge fails."
Case Title: Anil Babura Baile vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 292
While upholding the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Bombay High Court on Thursday held that the Act can be construed to be 'deterrent' to the commission of unlawful activities, but by no stretch of imagination can it be equated with 'preventive detention.' A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale rejected the petition filed by one Anil Baburao Baile, an alleged witness in the Bhima-Koregaon Elgar Parishad case, who had challenged the constitutional validity of the UAPA on the ground that there is no declaration of the date of coming into the effect of the said Act and also that the word 'Prevention' used in it, implies that it is an act which provides for 'prevention' and not for any 'penal' actions.
Bombay High Court Rejects PIL Accusing Global Fashion Giant PRADA Of Copying "Kolhapuri Chappals"
Case Title: Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire vs PRADA Group
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 293
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (July 16) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a restraining order against global fashion giant PRADA from commercializing and using "toe ring sandals" which is alleged to be deceptively similar to the GI tagged "Kolhapuri Chappal" without authorisation.
Case Title: PAB vs ARB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 294
The conduct of a wife refusing to have a physical relationship with her husband and accusing him of having an extra-marital affair, while insulting him in front of his friends, will amount to cruelty to the husband, the Bombay High Court held on Thursday. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale also said that the wife insulting the husband in front of his friends and ill-treating his employees will cause mental agony to the husband.
Case Title: Abdulkadir Lokhandwala vs Central Adoption Resource Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 295
The Bombay High Court has held that there is no provision under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 or the Adoption Regulations, 2022, that permits the adoption of a foreign national child by Indian relatives, unless the child is in need of care and protection or is a child in conflict with law. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale dismissed a writ petition filed by an Indian couple seeking permission to adopt their biological nephew, a four-year-old US citizen, who had been brought to India and was residing with them.
Case Title: Parvati @ Swati vs Vyankat
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 296
The Bombay High Court has held that after the father's death, the mother becomes the natural guardian of a minor and cannot be denied interim custody unless there is clear evidence that her guardianship would be detrimental to the welfare of the child. The Court set aside an order of the District Judge denying interim custody to the mother and directed that the child be handed over to her.
Case Title: Pranav Constructions Limited Versus Priyadarshini Co-operative Housing Society Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 297
The Bombay High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne held that a member of a society can be directed to vacate the premises occupied by them under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to ensure smooth redevelopment, if they act contrary to the terms of the Development Agreement. These Appeals have been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) challenging the order dated 20 June 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of Arbitration Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act without grant of any relief in favour of the Petitioner therein.
Case Title: Vedant vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 298
The Bombay High Court has held that pre-constitutional documentary evidence showing consistent entries of Scheduled Tribe status cannot be disregarded merely on the ground that the claimants fail to satisfy the affinity test. The Court quashed an order of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and directed it to issue validity certificates to Vedant Wankhade and his father, who claimed to belong to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.
Case Titile: State of Maharashtra vs Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil Ansari
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 299
The Bombay High Court while acquitting all the 12 convicts in the infamous 7/11 Mumbai train blast case, observed that the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) probing the case tortured the accused in the most 'inhuman and barbaric' manner as the officers were 'frustrated' at the relevant time and thus the 'confessional statements' of the accused obtained by the cops, were inadmissible. A special division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak after going through the evidence on record, noted that the accused were in 'prolonged' police custody till 76 days and that they retracted from their confessions recorded during their remand, just the moment when they were produced before the court for judicial custody.
Case Title: KSIQ vs IAQ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 300
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday (July 21) held that even when a personal law is pitted against the welfare and comfort of a child, the latter would always have an upper hand. Single-judge Justice Shailesh Brahme noted that the Muslim Personal Law allows the custody of a minor above the age of 7-years to the father and the child in the instant case was 9-years-old. However, after personally interacting with the child, the judge noted that he has a greater bonding with his mother and thus granted custody in her favour.
Case Title: Seema Sureshchandra Mehata vs Marvel Realtors & Developers Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 301
The Bombay High Court has held that the certificate contemplated under Rule 4 of the MahaRERA Rules, 2017, is not mandatory in an execution application, and the object of this Rule is to ensure that the directions for handing over possession are executed by the civil court within whose jurisdiction the project is situated.
Case Title: Bindu Narang vs Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 302
The Bombay High Court has held that the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) must adhere to the principles of natural justice as enshrined in Section 22-D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, even though summary procedure is followed. The Court quashed the PLA's order in a dispute involving a telecom bill, on the ground that the petitioner was denied the right to cross-examine the respondent's witness without any reasoning.
Case Title: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. vs Azhar Ahmed Qaisar Ahmed
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 303
The Bombay High Court has held that merely changing the purpose of electricity usage from one industrial activity to another does not amount to unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, unless it causes revenue loss to the distribution company. Justice Vrushali Joshi of the Nagpur Bench dismissed a writ petition filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) challenging the Appellate Authority's order that had set aside a demand bill issued to consumer Azhar Ahmed Qaisar Ahmed.
Case Title: Gazi Salauddin Rehmatulla Hoole alias Pardeshi Baba Trust vs New Shree Swami Samartha Borivade
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 304
Mere "mob fury" or "footfall of people" on a particular piece of land based on an assertion that it is a Dargah cannot prove that it is a legal structure, said the Bombay High Court while dismissing the plea filed by Gazi Salauddin Rehmatulla Hoole alias Pardeshi Baba Trust seeking recall of a May 30 order directing demolition of a structure in Thane. It thus refused to recall the demolition of the Dargah, which has allegedly expanded from 160 sq. ft. to over 17,610 sq. ft. without municipal approvals on private land in Thane district.
Case Title: Sadashiv Parbati Rupnawar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 305
Taunting a woman about her complexion and inability to prepare food properly are 'domestic quarrels' and the same cannot be a ground to invoke sections 498-A (harassment) and 306 (abetment to suicide) if the woman dies by suicide, the Bombay High Court held recently, while acquitting a man of a 27-year-old case. Single-judge Justice Shriram Modak said the allegations that the appellant husband taunted the deceased wife on her dark complexion and her father-in-law taunted her about the food quality, etc., though harassment but cannot be said to be of a higher degree.
Case Title: Celebi NAS Airport Services India Pvt Ltd vs Mumbai International Airport Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 306
The Bombay High Court this week vacated its earlier order restraining Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) from taking a final decision on the bids to replace Turkey-based Celebi Aviation Holding's subsidiary Celebi NAS for ground and bridge handling services at city's International airport. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan noted that the Delhi High Court recently dismissed the petition filed by Celebi Aviation Holding challenging the 'security clearance' by India's aviation security regulator - Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) under the Ministry of Civil Aviation of India, which had revoked the security clearance of Celebi Airport Services India of Celebi, citing grounds related to 'national security' with immediate effect.
Case Title: Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 307
Merely attending seminars and participating in physical training like karate etc conducted by the Popular Front of India (PFI), will not attract provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) which penalise terrorist act, held the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently held while granting bail to three men booked for being active members of PFI. A division bench of Justices Nitin Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar More noted that an FIR was lodged on September 21, 2022, by the Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) against Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel, Abdul Hadi Abdul Rauf Momin and Shaikh Irfan Shaikh Salim Alias Irfan Milli, based on a secret information that on November 21, 2021 and in July 2022, some seminars and physical and arms trainings were organised for Muslim youths.
Case Title: Amit Rama Zende vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 308
An alleged consent given in an agreement to 'live' with a man for a year and give birth to his child for some consideration, is not a free consent as it is a form of surrogacy, which is banned in India, held the Bombay High Court while refusing to quash rape FIR against a man. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh rejected the argument of the applicant - Amit Rama Zende, who claimed that he had entered into an agreement with the victim in a question, who had joined as a house help at his place.
Case Title: Laxman Motiram Barai vs Hafiza Sheikh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 309
The Bombay High Court has held that in the absence of a reasonable and plausible explanation, inordinate delay in filing a restoration application cannot be condoned merely by imposing costs, and doing so would amount to disregarding accrued rights of the opposite party. Single-judge Justice Vrushali Joshi was hearing a civil revision application filed by the original defendant challenging the order of the District Judge, which had condoned a delay of 2325 days and allowed restoration of a civil appeal filed by the plaintiffs.
Case Title: Javed Abdul Rahim Attar vs The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 310
The Bombay High Court has held that it is the duty of a constitutional court to intervene and inquire into instances where state power is alleged to have been abused for extraneous considerations. It directed the constitution of a high-level committee to examine the issuance of 935 notices under Section 79-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, by the Executive Engineer(s) of the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, a statutory unit under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority.
Case Title: Farah Deeba vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 311
Sending a 'laughing emoji' to the celebrations of 'Operation Sindoor' in a WhatsApp group, putting a video status of Indian flag burning and that of Prime Minister sitting on a rocket, would attract offences of endangering sovereignty, integrity and unity of India and also promoting enmity between two groups, the Bombay High Court held on July 29.
Case Title: Noberto Paulo Sebastiao Fernandes vs Pankaj Vithal Tan Volvoikar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 312
The Bombay High Court has held that a Sessions Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot entertain applications or pass orders that alter the status quo regarding possession, particularly when the original proceedings pertain to maintenance of public order under Section 164 BNSS.
Case Title: Harkisandas Tulsidas Pabari vs Rajendra Anandrao Acharya
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 313
The Bombay High Court Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne, observed that a Section 34 Court can only remit back to the same Arbitration following the procedure for remand u/s 33 and 34(4). The act of the Appellant not issuing a notice u/s 21 of the A&C Act to the Respondent, and approaching the same Arbitration, who initiates Arbitral proceedings, results in the Arbitral Tribunal being devoid of jurisdiction.
Wife Accusing Husband Of Impotency In Divorce Proceedings Not Defamation: Bombay High Court
Case Title: PVG vs VIG
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 314
A wife in her divorce petition or FIR, stating that her husband is 'impotent' would not amount to defamation, the Bombay High Court held recently while quashing a defamation case against a woman, her brother and father. Single-judge Justice Shriram Modak held that a wife making an allegation that her husband is impotent and this has caused mental cruelty to her, is justified.
Husband's Friend Is Not His Relative, Can't Be Booked U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High Court
Case Title: NMM vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 315
A male friend of the husband is not his relative and thus cannot be booked under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), held the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently, while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man booked under the said offence. A division of Justices Anil Pansare and Mahendra Nerlikar noted that one of the applicants before it was the husband's friend, who was named by the complainant wife in her FIR against her husband and his parents.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Sanjay
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 316
The Bombay High Court has held that where prosecution against a public servant for corruption is initiated without valid sanction from the competent authority, the entire trial stands vitiated; however, a fresh trial is not barred if a valid sanction is subsequently obtained. The Court highlighted that discharge in such a manner will send a wrong signal to society.
Case Title: Shankar Govindrao Lang vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 317
The Bombay High Court has held that mere past instances of overstay during furlough, particularly if they occurred over a decade ago, cannot by themselves justify the continued denial of furlough leave, especially when the convict has not been released since. It reiterated that such denial defeats the very objective of reformation and social reintegration underlying the concept of furlough.
Case Title: Salim Baig vs Sayyad Nawid
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 318
The Bombay High Court has held that an agreement which is unstamped and unregistered cannot be relied upon to grant interim injunctions, even if its execution is admitted by the defendant, as such a document is inadmissible in law until duly stamped and impounded under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. Single-judge Justice Santosh Chapalgaonkar was hearing a writ petition challenging the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and appellate court granting a temporary injunction against the petitioner, thereby restraining him from disturbing the respondent's alleged possession over the suit property.
Case Title: Krishnagopal B. Nangpal vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range – 3, Pune
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 319
The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of one residential house, used for purchase of multiple residential houses, would qualify for exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act. The issue before the bench was whether Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act allows the Assessee to set off the purchase cost of more than one residential units against the capital gains earned from sale of a single residential house.
Case Title: Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar vs Sandip Madhav Khase
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 320
The Bombay High Court has held that trial courts have no jurisdiction to dispense with the statutory notice requirement under Section 280 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act and Section 180 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, unlike Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides a limited discretion. It held that non-compliance with these mandatory provisions renders the suit non-maintainable.
Case Title: Pune Municipal Corporation vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 321
The Bombay High Court held that Section 194C and Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act would not apply when TDR Certificates are issued in lieu of compensation. A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla agreed with the assessee that the words “or by any other mode” appearing in Section 194C would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft”. Similarly, in Section 194LA, the words “or by any other mode” would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft."
Case Title: Sumanbai vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 322
The Bombay High Court has held that an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is maintainable even if the claimant had previously filed a reference under Section 18, provided that the said reference was not decided on merits. The Court ruled that a dismissal of a reference on technical grounds, without adjudication, does not bar the landowner from seeking re-determination under Section 28-A.
Case Title: Sachin Malpani vs Nilam Patil
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 323
The Bombay High Court has held that apartment owners in a condominium must pay maintenance charges for common areas in proportion to their undivided interest, as required under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. It ruled that this statutory requirement cannot be modified or overridden by resolutions passed by the association of apartment owners seeking to impose equal charges irrespective of unit size.
Case Title: FICCI vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 324
The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the seventh proviso inserted into Section 2(b) of the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act, which brings within its ambit the additional amount charged by cinema proprietors for online booking of movie tickets. It observed that the activity of online booking is not different from an offline booking and can be taxed under Entry 62 of List II
Case Title: Sarva Shramik Sangh vs The Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 325
The Bombay High Court has held that delay in adjudication of an industrial reference cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny just relief to workmen whose services were illegally terminated. The Court observed that when the delay is not attributable to the workmen and the termination is found to be in violation of law, reinstatement is the appropriate remedy.
Serving Order On Chartered Accountant Doesn't Count As Service On Assessee: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 326
The Bombay High Court held that serving order on chartered accountant doesn't count as service on assessee. The issue before the bench was whether the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal when served upon the Chartered Accountant is sufficient service and whether it can be construed as 'copy received by the assesse/applicant'. A bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta stated that the Chartered Accountant since is not also authorised specifically to accept copy of the order, cannot be said to be a recognised agent of the Assessee.
Case Title: Shivshankar vs Sanjay
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 327
The Bombay High Court has held that a claimant can restrict the claim amount while filing an appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to avail the benefit of lower court fees at the initial stage, without being compelled to pay court fees on the full amount claimed in the original proceedings. Single-judge Justice Shailesh Brahme was hearing an appeal filed challenging the award passed by the claims tribunal passed U/Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant had initially claimed Rs. 40 Lakhs as compensation for the accident, and was granted Rs. 5.5 Lakhs by the tribunal. Being aggrieved by the award and for the enhancement of compensation, he preferred an appeal, valuing the claim at Rs. 1,00,000/- for the purpose of Court fees.
Case Title: Jayesh Bandu Limie vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 328
A candidate's involvement in an activity associated with gambling certainly amounts to moral turpitude and writ courts cannot order an employer to consider such a person for public service, especially in judiciary, the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the petition filed by one Jayesh Limje, who challenged the decision of the administration of the City Civil Sessions Court, Mumbai which on June 9, struck off his name from the selection list and also cancelled his appointment to the post of 'Clerk-Typist.'
Case Title: Babu Abdul Ruf Sarkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 329
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court while denying bail to an alleged Bangladeshi national, held that merely having documents such as Aadhar Card, PAN Card or a Voter ID Card, does not make someone a citizen of India and in fact the concerned person must place on record the verification of these documents. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar denied bail to the Petitioner, who was booked by the Thane Police, last year, on the ground that he was a Bangladeshi national and that he misled the Indian authorities and obtained Aadhar Card, PAN Card and also a Voter ID Card, income tax records, gas and electricity connections, fraudulently.
Case Title: Shashikant Vitthal Kothawade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 330
The Bombay High Court has dismissed with costs a petition filed by an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act seeking to set aside a 'no cross' order passed by the trial court, after he failed to cross-examine the prosecution's prime witness despite being given repeated opportunities over a span of five years. Single-judge Justice Kishore Sant was hearing the criminal writ, filed challenging the trial court's refusal to recall PW-2, the de facto complainant, after the accused failed to cross-examine him on three separate occasions, despite the court setting aside two prior no-cross orders and granting the same relief.
Case Title: Ashwini Trading Co. vs Housing Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 331
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) must be given a purposive interpretation to ensure that recovery proceedings by banks fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), even if the suit was not originally within its jurisdiction at the time of filing. The Court ruled that when a non-banking lender merges with a bank during the pendency of a recovery suit, the matter must be transferred to DRT, given Sections 17 and 18 of the RDB Act.
Case Title: Sarfaraz Sayyad vs State of Goa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 332
The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court while declaring 'illegal' the arrest of a sitting Councillor of a local body for being an alleged member of the Popular Front of India (PFI), recently held that the police cannot arrest a person under section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) merely on the apprehension that the said person may indulge in illegal activities in future and that there is a possibility of him breaching peace in the locality.
Case Title: Siddharth Iswar Motghare vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 333
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has held that a subsequent change in the elected body of a Grampanchayat does not, by itself, justify the cancellation of decisions or resolutions passed by its earlier body. Such an approach would undermine the stability of local administration and is contrary to the purpose of Panchayati Raj institutions. A division bench of Justice Mukulika Jawalkar and Justice Pravin Patil was hearing a writ petition filed by Siddharth Iswar Motghare challenging the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha's order of December 22, 2023, which quashed the recruitment of a Peon in Grampanchayat Antargaon. The petitioner, appointed in June 2022 and later confirmed in February 2023, alleged that the cancellation was based on a misapplication of a Government Resolution meant for State Government employees, which is inapplicable to Grampanchayat employees.
Case Title: Zulferkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 334
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has held that pendency of a trial under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act) is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to keep another trial in abeyance, and prolonged custody without progress in trial amounts to a violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Single-judge bench Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the Gondia Sessions Court's order refusing bail to Zulferkar @ Chotu, accused of murder and other offences under the IPC, Arms Act, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Bombay Police Act, in a case registered in 2012. The appellant, in custody since September 2020 following cancellation of his earlier bail for breach of conditions, sought release on the ground that not a single witness had been examined in nearly five years of incarceration.
No Sales Tax On HDPE Bags Used To Pack Cement When Sold Separately: Bombay High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Associated Cement Company Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 335
The Bombay High Court stated that no sales tax can be levied on HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) bags at cement rate when sold separately. Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain were addressing the issue of whether there is an express and independent contract on the sale of HDPE bags in which cement is packed. “HDPE bags used to pack the cement were a distinct commodity with its own identity and were classified separately. There was no chemical or physical change in the packing either at the time of packing or at the time of use of the contents. The packing is capable of being reused after the contents have been consumed; there was evidence of reuse or resale, which was not challenged by the revenue. The HDPE bags were used to pack the cement for ease of transportation and convenience…,” opined the bench.
Case Title: Kalpesh Rajendra Jain vs Pramod Gaurishankar Todi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 336
Justice Milind Jadhav of the Bombay High Court last week refused to recuse himself from hearing a set of writ petitions filed in 2016, in which the petitioner levelled serious allegations of corruption, bribery and bias against two sitting Judges of the HC, including Justice Jadhav himself. Dismissing an interim application seeking his recusal from the matters, Justice Jadhav also imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner for attempting to 'browbeat' the Court and indulge in 'forum shopping'.
Case Title: Jaykumar B. Patil vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 337
The Bombay High Court has held that where a company grants an advance to one of its shareholders and such advance is not demonstrated to have been utilised for the business of the company, the amount would be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court declined to interfere with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had upheld the addition of such advances as a deemed dividend.
Case Title: Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 338
In an order granting relief to HDFC Bank's Managing Director, Sashidhar Jagdishan, the Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate issuing notice to him in a private complaint lodged against him at the behest of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. Notably, the complainant Trust runs the famous Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai. In its FIR, the Trust has accused Jagdishan of accepting a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore from erstwhile Trustee Chetan Mehta, for giving him financial advice and helping him to retain control over the Trust's governance. It further accused Jagdishan of interfering in its internal affairs by misusing his position as the head of the HDFC bank.
Case Title: Aditya Ramchandra Patil vs Yuvraj Bhivaji Patil
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 339
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court held that involvement of another vehicle for causing an accident is not necessary and a mere skidding or slipping of the motorcycle too can amount to an 'accident' making the victims entitled to compensation under Motor Vehicles Act. Noting that term accident was not defined under the Act and would include any sudden event harming a person, the high court granted compensation of Rs. 7,82,800 with @7.5% interest per annum to the kin of a woman who died in a road-accident after her saree got entangled in the chain of the motorcycle, due to which the motorcycle slipped on the road.
Case Title: Commissioners of Customs (Export) v. Bank of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 340
The Bombay High Court stated that expired bank guarantee can't be enforced post CIRP (corporate insolvency resolution process). A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that, “The argument that a personal guarantee survives the CIRP does not apply in the case because the guarantee had expired even before the CIRP. During the validity period of the guarantee, admittedly, no claim was lodged by the department. This petition was instituted almost 10 years after the guarantee expired, and that too by instituting a writ petition, probably realising that a suit would be barred by limitation.”
Case Title: Narendra Bhuva vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 341
The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of vintage car taxable unless the assessee proves that the car was used as a personal asset. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne stated that the capability of a car for personal use would not ipso facto lead to automatic presumption that every car would be personal effects for being excluded from capital assets of the Assessee.
Case Title: M/s. Eagle Security & Personnel Services vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 342
The Bombay High Court held that RCM notifications denying ITC credit to service providers are constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The bench opined that in case of RCM, the person receiving the services, i.e. the recipient pays the tax and can claim credit of the same. The provider of service is exempt from paying tax. Merely because persons covered by RCM cannot claim credit of ITC cannot be seen in a microscopic way to hold the notification and the provision as ultra vires.
Case Title: Sony Mony Electronics Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 343
The Bombay High Court has held that an order under Section 53A(1) of the Bombay/Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 must be passed within a period of six years from the date of issuance of the certificate of adjudication under Section 32. It ruled that merely initiating proceedings within six years is not enough, as the final order itself has to be made within that period.
Case Title: Deepak Babasaheb Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 344
The Bombay High Court has held that failure to examine the victim in a case of sexual assault, coupled with the omission to examine the police officer who recorded her statement, fatally undermines the prosecution's case and results in denial of a fair trial to the accused. The Court observed that such lapses strike at the root of the prosecution's case and violate the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21.
Bombay High Court Upholds Election Of BJP MLA Captain Tamil Selvan
Case Title: Ganesh Kumar Yadav vs Captain R Tamil Selvan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 345
The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 18) dismissed a petition challenging the election of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Captain R Tamil Selvan to the Maharashtra Assembly from the Sion-Koliwada constituency. Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav dismissed Congress candidate Ganesh Kumar Yadav's election petition for failing to establish how Selvan resorted to corrupt practices and how non-disclosure of his liabilities and government dues, 'materially' affected the elections.
Case Title: Arcee Electronics vs Arceeika
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 346
The Bombay High Court has held that the place of purchase of goods, and not the residence of the customer, is relevant for determining territorial jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court ruled that mere delivery of goods to customers residing within the Court's jurisdiction is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction when the actual purchases were made elsewhere.
Case Title: Sunil vs Star India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 347
The Bombay High Court has held that registration of a film title with a producers' association does not, by itself, create any enforceable exclusive right against third parties, and cannot be the basis for an injunction. The Court clarified that such registrations are only for internal regulation among members of the association and have no statutory authority under the Trade Marks Act or the Copyright Act.
Case Title: Dnyaneshwar vs Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 348
The Bombay High Court set aside the order of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, which had invalidated the caste claims of the petitioners belonging to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. The Court held that once the vigilance cell had admitted the validity of the pre-independence documents, the committee could not have mechanically directed a re-enquiry without recording reasons.
Case Title: Bhanuchandra J Doshi vs Ms Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 349
The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan while deciding a petition under Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) had an occasion to interpret Rule 13, National Stock Exchange (“NSE”) Byelaws. The Court held that Rule 13(b) which provided that arbitral award under the Rules must be rendered within three months from the date of entering upon reference was directory and not mandatory in nature.
Case Title: Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sangathana vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 350
The Bombay High Court has held that courts need not interfere in allotments of land made by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) merely because no public advertisement was issued or because the publicity was inadequate, so long as the action of the State is bona fide and in furtherance of a public purpose.
Case Title: The North Goa (Non-Gazetted) Judicial Court Employees Association vs State of Goa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 351
The Bombay High Court bench at Goa recently while directing the State government to extend the air conditioning facilities in the district courts for the supporting staff, held that the supporting staff like the stenographers, court clerks, court managers, bailiff, peon, nazir etc are the backbone of the judiciary. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta noted that in a new court complex at Merces, North Goa, such air conditioning facilities have already been arranged for the judicial officers, public prosecutors, lawyers (in the bar room) but the same facility has not been extended to the supporting staff, which is 452 in number.
Case Title: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Vinod Anandrao Parate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 352
The Bombay High Court has held that mere assertions of non-availability or non-traceability of documents, without filing a supporting affidavit, cannot constitute sufficient grounds for permitting secondary evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The Court upheld the decision of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) refusing to allow Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to lead secondary evidence.
Case Title: JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. vs Amarlal Parashramji Sharma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 353
The Bombay High Court has held that unless the main proceedings are maintainable in law, there is no question of condoning delay in filing them. The Court ruled that the Labour Court erred in condoning a delay of 333 days in filing a review application without first examining whether such a review was maintainable, as the Industrial Disputes Act does not confer any power of review upon the Labour Court.
Case Title: Sateri Builders & Developers LLP vs Minister of State, Home (Rural) Housing School Education Co-operative Mining Department
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 354
The Bombay High Court has expressed concern over repeated delays in the implementation of slum rehabilitation schemes and directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to ensure that projects are implemented expeditiously in accordance with the object of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The Court observed that any interference or obstruction in the statutory process defeats the very purpose of the scheme, which is meant to provide secure housing to slum dwellers.
Case Title: Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Raigad
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 355
The Bombay High Court held that interest on fixed deposits, TDS refund linked to business qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides tax incentives for businesses operating in certain sectors such as infrastructure, power, and telecommunications. A bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla stated that the placement of fixed deposits was imperative for the purpose of carrying on the eligible business of the assessee. The placement of fixed deposits is not for parking surplus funds which are lying idle. This is also demonstrated by the fact that the assessee had used these fixed deposits for purchasing cranes for the eligible business. There is a direct nexus between the fixed deposits and the eligible business of the assessee.
Case Title: Sanjay Shirke vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 356
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (September 4) refused permission to citizens of Mumbai's plush Malabar Hill area to immerse their "eco-friendly" Ganesha idols at city's Banganga Talao (lake). A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Aarti Sathe refused to grant any relief to the petitioner Sanjay Shirke. According to Shirke, he and other residents of the Malabar Hill area have been immersing their eco-friendly idols in the Banganga Talao every year for several years altogether. However, this year the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) issued a fresh set of guidelines on August 26, by which it prohibited the immersion of even the eco-friendly idols in natural waterbodies.
Case Title: Tivoli Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 357
The Bombay High Court stated that the assessing officer (AO) can determine the annual value of the property higher than the municipal rateable value under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act. Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with the "taxability of 'Income from House Property”. It says the annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which are chargeable to income-tax, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from house property".
Case Title: Nilangekar Taluka Eksangh Kruti Samiti vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 358
The Bombay High Court has held that the creation of an office of an Additional Tehsildar for administrative convenience does not amount to the creation or constitution of a new revenue area under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Court clarified that such appointments are permissible under Sections 7 and 13 of the Code and do not require compliance with the procedure of previous publication and notification mandated for altering revenue areas.
Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. vs Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 359
The Bombay High Court recently ordered a man to do cleaning and mopping work at the government-run JJ hospital after noting that he had filed a bogus complaint against Zee TV for its new show titled 'Tum Se Tum Tak' which revolves around the love story of a nearly 46-year-old man and a 19-year-old girl. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad was hearing a petition filed by Zee TV seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the channel by one Mahendra Sanjay Sharma over its new serial.
Case Title: Pravin Nathalal Parch vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 360
A child's custody cannot be given to his grandparents just because there is an emotional attachment and the same does not confer any 'superior' right to custody over that of the biological parents, the Bombay High Court held on September 4 (Thursday) while allowing a father's habeas corpus plea to get the custody of his son. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad noted that the petitioner couple was blessed with twin boys on November 12, 2019 and since the father (of the twins) replaced his own father in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) after the latter's retirement, the family agreed to keep one of the twins with the grandparents and one with the biological parents.
Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Accused In 2012 Pune Serial Blasts Case
Case Title: Farooq Shaukat Bagwan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 361
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 9) granted bail to one of the accused in the 2012 serial bomb blasts case in Pune on the ground of delayed trial. Five low intensity explosions took place in Pune City on the evening of August 1, 2012, in which one person was injured. Apart from five bomb blasts, one live bomb was found in the carrier basket of Hero Street Ranger black colour bicycle, parked outside a busy area outside a shop in Pune. The same was defused by the Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad, Pune.
Ambiguous Terms Of An Insurance Policy Must Be Interpreted To Favour The Insured: Bombay High Court
Case Title: TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Vinay Sah
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 362
The Bombay High Court has held that in cases of ambiguity in an insurance policy, the principle of contra proferentem would apply and the terms must be interpreted in favour of the insured. The Court expressed serious concern over the conduct of TATA AIG General Insurance Company in repudiating the claim of a widow whose husband had availed a compulsory credit-linked insurance policy bundled with his housing loan, observing that the company had attempted to escape its obligations by taking a hyper-technical view.
Case Title: Amit Sunarlal Shahu vs Hare Madhav Electronics
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 363
The Bombay High Court has held that a complaint cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely because the complainant or counsel was absent on a few dates of hearing. The Court observed that principles of natural justice require giving the complainant a fair opportunity to prosecute the complaint on the merits, and that a harsh or hyper-technical approach should be avoided.
Case Title: Sruti Vijaykumar vs Falgun Yogendra Shroff
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 364
The Bombay High Court has stated that facing tax prosecution does not automatically bar an accused from foreign travel. single-judge Justice Shriram Modak stated that, "It is true right to travel abroad is recognised as a fundamental right. Merely because a person is facing with prosecution, it does not mean that he cannot travel abroad till the time the investigation is under progress or criminal case is pending." The respondent is an accused in connection with a File registered with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ('DRI'), Mumbai, for an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act.
Case Title: M/s Provident Housing Ltd. vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 365
The Bombay High Court held that tax liability under JDA (joint development agreement) arises only upon conveyance of property, not on execution of agreement. The division bench consists of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta stated that no liability actually fell upon the assessee at the time when JDA was entered into, as the liability arises only upon the conveyance of the property. The assessee developer becoming the owner of the property for which the JDA was executed. Accordingly, the tax liability does not fall upon the assessee.
Case Title: Rajiv Ranjan Singh vs Securities and Exchange Board of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 366
The Bombay High Court has held that discharge from prosecution under the SEBI Act cannot be claimed merely on the ground that an adjudicating officer of SEBI has not imposed a penalty or passed any adverse directions. The Court ruled that exoneration in regulatory proceedings will bar criminal prosecution only when there is a clear and categorical finding of innocence on the merits, and not otherwise.
Non-Disbursal Of Sanctioned Loan Does Not Amount To Abetment To Suicide: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Vishal Bhanudas Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 367
The Bombay High Court bench at Aurangabad recently held that merely because the finance company did not disburse a sanctioned loan amount for want of procedural requirements and/or demanded processing fees or took one instalment in advance, and the loan applicant commits suicide, the said firm or its employees, then cannot be booked for abetment of his suicide or defamation. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten Venegavkar said that the act of the finance company's employees cannot amount to 'instigation.'
Case Title: Milind Satish Sawant vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 368
The Bombay High Court has held that the right to appeal is a statutory right and not a fundamental, and thus the legislature can decide the appellate forum based on the subject matter of offences. "As to the contention that the accused loses one appellate forum, this Court finds it without merit. The right of appeal is not a fundamental right; it is purely a statutory right created by the Legislature. The Legislature, depending on the nature of the subject, may consciously provide for a higher forum of appeal in certain classes of cases," the court said.
Case Title: Asian Paints Ltd. vs Competition Commission of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 369
The Bombay High Court has held that a party has no inherent right of oral or written hearing at the stage where the Competition Commission of India (CCI) forms a prima facie opinion under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. The Court clarified that the order at this stage is administrative in nature, and whether to afford a hearing lies within the discretion of the CCI. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale was hearing a writ petition filed by Asian Paints Limited challenging the CCI's orders, whereby the CCI directed the Director General to investigate allegations made by Grasim Industries Limited that Asian Paints had abused its dominant position in the decorative paints market.
Case Title: Rajan Baburao Vichare vs Naresh Ganpat Mhaske
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 370
The Bombay High Court has held that election candidates are required to disclose only those convictions that have resulted in imprisonment of one year or more. The Court read down Entry 6 of Form 26 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, to bring it in line with Section 33A(1)(ii) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which mandates such disclosure. Single-judge Justice Riyaz Chagla was hearing applications filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 14 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the election petition filed against them. The petitioner had argued that the returned candidate failed to disclose his conviction in Form 26, thereby rendering his election liable to be set aside.
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 371
The Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside notices issued by the Maharashtra government to Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Corporation (BAGIC) demanding it to pay Rs 374 crores to the farmers in Osmanabad for the loss of their soybean crops due to 'unseasonal rains' categorised as 'localised calamity' under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PM Yojna).
Case Title: Rahul Pittu Savalkar vs Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 372
The Bombay High Court has held that workmen who have completed the requisite period of continuous service cannot be denied permanent status merely on the ground that sanctioned posts are unavailable. The Court emphasised that such a denial would amount to continued exploitation of the workers, contrary to welfare legislation and the mandate of social justice.
Case Title: Molbio Diagnostics Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 373
The Bombay High Court has stated that reassessment beyond 3 years is valid where bogus royalty expenses exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years, in the present case, where the alleged bogus royalty expenses exceeded 50 Lakhs. The bench opined that Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act is a jurisdictional fact which must be established prior to reopening of assessment on the ground that income has escaped assessment.
Case Title: Krishna Shantaram Chamankar vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 374
In a major relief to the Chamankar brothers, one of the prime accused in the Maharashtra Sadan Scam case involving State Cabinet Minister Chhagan Bhujbal, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 16) quashed the case lodged against them by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Rajesh Patil quashed the ED case lodged under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against Krishna and Prasanna Chamankar (both brothers) owning the KS Chamankar Enterprises, the contractor, who was accused of fraudulently obtaining the contract.
Case Title: High Court of Judicature At Bombay On Its Own Motion vs Nilesh C Ojha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 375
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday initiated another suo motu criminal contempt of court case against advocate Nilesh Ojha, who made 'scandalous and scurrilous' allegations against a sitting judge, while defending himself in another criminal contempt of court case, which was initiated by a five-judge bench for levelling similar allegations against the same judge.
Case Title: Romell Housing LLP vs Sameer Salim Shaikh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 376
The Bombay High Court has held that where an inquiry under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 164 in the BNSS] is specifically directed by the High Court or the Supreme Court, the Magistrate is not required to pass a separate preliminary order under Section 145(1). The Court observed that in such cases, the satisfaction as to the existence of a dispute likely to cause breach of peace is already recorded by the higher court, and the Magistrate's duty is limited to conducting the inquiry as directed.
Case Title: Classic Legends Pvt Ltd. vs Assessment Unit
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 377
The Bombay High Court has held that a draft assessment order is not permissible under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act when the TPO (transfer pricing officer) makes no variation. Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides that the Assessing Officer should forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation of the income or loss returned is proposed to be made which affects the assessee negatively.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax vs Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 378
The Bombay High Court has held that payments to consultant doctors are not salary. Hence, TDS is deductible under section 194J and not under section 192 of the Income Tax Act. A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla stated that there does not exist an employer-employee relationship between the assessee and consultant doctors, and the payments made to them by the assessee come under the purview of section 194J of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Bharat Shatrughana Bhosale vs Divisional Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 379
The Bombay High Court has held that denial of an effective opportunity of hearing to a proposed externee under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, amounts to a violation of constitutional values and vitiates the entire externment proceedings. The Court observed that personal liberty guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed except by following due process of law, and externment orders passed mechanically and without application of mind cannot be sustained.
Case Title: Rupali Bapurao Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 380
The Bombay High Court has held that an assurance of abnormally high and guaranteed profits in intra-day share trading demonstrates prima facie dishonest intention at the inception, thereby attracting criminal liability. The Court observed that no genuine business can yield assured profits of 10–15% per month, and such inducements cannot be brushed aside as mere civil disputes.
Case Title: Ashish Chandrakant Chauhan vs Mohini Mukesh Chauhan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 381
The Bombay High Court has held that preventing a woman from residing in her shared household amounts to domestic violence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court emphasised that the right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the Act exists irrespective of any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.
Case Title: NHS vs ANS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 382
The Bombay High Court, while dissolving a marriage, held that if a spouse suppresses a fact that she suffers from an incurable disease like "cerebral palsy" before marriage, that can be a ground for the other spouse to seek divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. A division bench of Justices Nitin Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar More decided the appeal filed by a husband, who challenged the judgment of a Family Court, which, by an order passed on August 17, 2023, dismissed his plea seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty.
Case Title: Surendra vs Agrofab Machineries Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 383
The Bombay High Court has held that an employee cannot be compelled to deposit the amount of retrenchment compensation as a condition for challenging his retrenchment. The Court observed that retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a statutory right of the employee and is intended to provide subsistence during unemployment. Making its deposit a precondition for litigation may force employees to withdraw challenges due to financial hardship.
Case Title: Yashwant Anna Bhoir vs State of Maharastra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 384
The Bombay High Court has expressed deep concern over the lack of civic infrastructure and systematic planning in the Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal area and directed the constitution of an Improvement Committee to provide recommendations for urban development. The Court held that improper planning and deficient civic amenities directly affect the fundamental rights of citizens to a clean and healthy environment, as guaranteed under the Constitution.
Case Title: State Of Goa vs Unique Identification Authority of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 385
The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that providing demographic information with regard to the proof of identity (POI), proof of birth (POB), and the proof of address (POA) of an individual to the police does not result in disclosing personal information. Single-judge Justice Valmiki Menezes was hearing an application filed by the State of Goa seeking a direction to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIADI) to disclose the demographic information pertaining to one Yaniv Benaim @ Atala, an Israeli national, who secured an Aadhar Card despite being a foreigner and that too without providing any valid documents.
Case Title: Khyyum Khadir Patwari vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 386
A person may represent a religion in certain ways but s/he does not become a 'religion' himself, the Bombay High Court observed while holding that any abuse or use of disrespectful words for a socio political figure cannot be equated with insult to faith. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten Venegavkar, sitting at Aurangabad, quashed an FIR lodged against a man, booked for hurling abuses at Maratha leader and activist Manoj Jarange-Patil, who has been spearheading the protests for the reservation for the community.
Case Title: Hikal Limited vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 387
The Bombay High Court has held that all pending proceedings under the omitted CGST Rules 89(4B) & 96(10) lapse in the absence of a savings clause. The bench agreed with the assessee/petitioners that the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act are not attracted and therefore the pending proceedings can claim no immunity or protection.
Case Title: VVB vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 388
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court on Friday held that merely levelling allegations of "adultery" against a woman cannot disentitle her from claiming a right in her deceased husband's family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (MCSR). A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Yanshivraj Khobragade therefore, refused to grant any relief to the brother and mother of a deceased man, who was living separately from his wife after accusing her of adultery.
Case Title: Shivranjan Towers Sahakari Griha Rachana v Bhujbal Constructions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 389
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice NizamoodinJamadar has observed that when individual flat owners form a cooperative society to enforce rights created in favour of the individual members under the Agreements for Sale, the society cannot claim that it is not bound by the arbitration clause contained in those Agreements. The argument that it is not a signatory to the Agreements for Sale is untenable and such society is not a third party to the arbitral proceedings.
Denial Of Re-Testing Of Seized Goods Must Be Occasional And Recorded In Writing: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Vyom Dipesh Raichanna vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 390
The Bombay High Court has held that re-testing of seized goods is a trade facilitation measure, not to be denied in the ordinary course. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Advait Sethna stated that "...Ultimately, such denial must be only occasional and that too, on reasonable grounds to be recorded in writing. The guidelines emphasised that this facility of re-testing is nothing but a trade facilitation measure, which, generally, will not be denied in the ordinary course…"
Case Title: MABRB vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 391
Just because a minor girl has fallen in love with an adult man and their families have got them married and she has given birth to a child does not mean that the offences under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act are not made out, the Bombay High Court held on Friday (September 26). A division bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh Deshpande refused to quash an FIR lodged against 29-year-old man and his parents, booked under the charges of the stringent POCSO Act and also the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
Case Title: Malabar Gold & Diamond Limited vs Meta Platforms Inc
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 392
The Bombay High Court on Monday (September 29) in an ad-interim order, directed various social media platforms to pull down the defamatory posts against jewellery brand Malabar Gold and Diamonds, which is being labelled as a 'Sympathiser of Pakistan' by netizens for engaging a Pakistani social media influencer to promote it's brand in London.
Bombay High Court Quashes Bank Of India Order Classifying Naresh Goyal's Loan Account As 'Fraud'
Case Title: Naresh Jagdishrai Goyal vs Bank of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 393
The Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside a show cause notice issued to Jet Airway's founder Naresh Goyal, by which the Bank of India (BoI) classified his loan account as 'fraud.' A division bench of Justices Riyaz Chagla and Farhan Dubash noted that the Bank did not provide an opportunity to Goyal to represent against the July 1, 2025 show cause notice classifying his account as fraud.
Case Title: Akshay Quenim vs Royce Savio Pereira
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 394
The Bombay High Court has held that when a defendant files an application for return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the Trial Court must first examine that application before considering any amendment sought by the plaintiff. The Court emphasised that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a Court by way of amendment if it inherently lacks jurisdiction at the time of filing of the plaint.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Aakash Sandhi Bindu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 395
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 1) cancelled the bail granted to a man booked in a gang rape case by a trial court on the ground that his marriage was scheduled to take place and that there were no injuries on the victim's private parts. Single-judge Justice Dr Neela Gokhale noted that the Additional Sessions Judge at Dindoshi (Borivali Division) had on February 24, 2025 granted bail to one Aakash Bindu on the ground that his marriage was to take place in the first week of March 2025.
Case Title: Gautam Dham Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Funds and Properties of Parsi Panchayat, Bombay
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 396
The Bombay High Court has held that the limitation period for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 begins from the date of service of summons along with a copy of the plaint, and not from the date of filing of the Vakalatnama by the defendant. The Court emphasised that the responsibility to serve the plaint rests upon the plaintiff and that the defendant cannot be expected to apply to the court office to obtain a copy of the plaint merely because a Vakalatnama has been filed earlier.
Bombay High Court Dismisses Anil Ambani's Plea Against SBI Classifying His Loan Account As "Fraud"
Case Title: Anil D Ambani vs State Bank of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 397
The Bombay High Court on Friday refused to quash the order passed by the State Bank of India (SBI), which classified the loan account of Reliance Communications and also its chairman Anil Ambani as "fraud." A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale pronounced the order. Notably, Ambani and his company account's classification as "fraud" was made on June 13, 2025, under the Reserve Bank of India's Master Directions on Fraud Risk Management and SBI's internal policy.
Case Title: Asha Bhosle vs Mayk Inc.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 398
The Bombay High Court has held that making Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools available which allow the conversion of any voice into that of a celebrity without consent amounts to a violation of personality rights. Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor was hearing a suit filed by legendary playback singer Asha Bhosle, who approached the Court against companies accused of developing and offering AI-based applications that cloned her voice to generate songs and other content. The applications also allegedly used her image and likeness for merchandise, posters and online promotion without her permission.
Case Title: Vasantha Perampally Nayak vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 399
The Bombay High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the Maharashtra government for wrongly invoking offences against a Karnataka-based man and thereafter illegally arresting him and keeping him in custody for nearly 20 days. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh Patil noted that two officers - Pradeep Kerkar and Kapil Shirsath, Inspector and Police Sub-Inspector of the Bandra Police Station, had initially sought permission from their superiors to register an FIR against one Vasantha Nayak under sections 420 (cheating) , 406 (criminal breach of trust), 465 (forgery), 477A (fabrication of accounts) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, while registering the FIR, the officers invoked section 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) against Nayak, without informing the superiors.
Case Title: Mangal Credit and Fincorp Limited Versus Ulka Chandrshekhar Nair
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 400
The Bombay High Court bench of single-judge Justice Advait Sethna has held that the disputes between Mangal Credit and Fincorp Limited and Ulka Chandrshekhar Nair are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) even though allegations of fraud and forgery were raised and a criminal was filed in which no progress has been made.
Case Title: Shree Construction Company vs Bagwe Housing Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 401
The Bombay High Court has held that mere knowledge of a contract or incidental benefits flowing from it cannot create privity of contract or confer enforceable rights against third parties. The Court ruled that in the absence of a direct contractual relationship, no cause of action arises.
Proceedings For Conciliation & Arbitration Under MSME Act Cannot Be Clubbed: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Dodal Electro Instruments vs The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 402
The Bombay High Court has set set aside two ex-parte orders passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Daman holding that the council acted in breach of mandatory two stage procedures under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”). The court remitted the matter for fresh arbitration in accordance with law.