Occupant Cannot Create Or Assign Third-Party Rights In Premises Without Permission: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Auto Credit Corporation vs Mukesh Bansilal Shah Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 403The Bombay High Court has held that an occupant who is not a recognised tenant has no right, title, or interest to assign or create third-party rights in the premises without proper legal authority....
Case Title: Auto Credit Corporation vs Mukesh Bansilal Shah
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 403
The Bombay High Court has held that an occupant who is not a recognised tenant has no right, title, or interest to assign or create third-party rights in the premises without proper legal authority. The Court took serious note of the conduct of Auto Credit Corporation and Rekha Prakash Jain, who had attempted to interfere with sealed premises and delay testamentary proceedings, and imposed exemplary costs of ₹25 lakh for abuse of the judicial process.
Case Title: Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 404
The Bombay High Court has held that pre-show cause notice consultation is not an empty formality; mandatory before the show cause notice (SCN) in demands above Rs. 50 lakhs. The question before Justices Mahesh Sonak and Advait Sethna was whether a pre-consultation notice would be mandatory before issuing show cause notices where the tax demand exceeds Rs. 50 Lakhs.
Case Title: Ortho Relief Hospital and Research vs M/s. Anand Distilleries
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 405
The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, comprising Justice MM Nerlikar, has held that the prior initiation of IBC proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution of directors under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner extended a short-term loan of Rs. 15 lakhs to the respondent through its directors. A post-dated cheque was issued as a security by the director. The NCLT admitted the respondent company into the CIRP, and its failure resulted in the liquidation order. The petitioner lodged its claim with the interim resolution professional.
Case Title: Anil Ambani vs State Bank of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 406
While dismissing the plea filed by industrialist Anil Ambani, the Bombay High Court held that whenever a company's account is classified as "fraud" its Promoters, Directors or anyone having control over the said company, automatically become liable to penal actions as mandated under the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Master Directions, 2024. Notably, Ambani and his company Reliance Communications' loan account was declared "fraud" by the State Bank of India (SBI) in June this year, over a loan amount of Rs 1,500 crore. The High Court had dismissed Ambani's plea on October 3 but the detailed order was made available today (October 7).
Case Title: Vidyapeeth Society, Kolhapur vs The State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 407
A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Makarand Karnik and Justice Sharmila Deshmukh held that rejection of a teacher's appointment approval was unsustainable because the mandatory 'Pavitra Portal' was non-functional at the time of recruitment, and the Education Officer failed to respond to the school's prior communications.
Citizens Can't Claim Absolute Right To Visit Public Offices: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Kishore Jairam Chakole vs The Western Coalfields Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 408
In an important order, the Bombay High Court recently held that no citizen can claim an absolute right to visit public offices purportedly for lodging complaints. A division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Rajnish Vyas, sitting at the Nagpur seat, upheld the decision of the Western Coalfields Ltd. which declared one Kishore Chakole as "Persona Non Grata" thereby prohibiting his entry in their premises.
Case Title: Amit Ashok Jagdale vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 409
The Bombay High Court has held that the mere use of abusive, filthy, or defamatory language is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unless the act is obscene and causes annoyance to others in or near a public place. The Court reiterated that annoyance and obscenity are both essential ingredients of the offence and must be specifically established through evidence.
Case Title: Zanmai Labs Private Limited vs Bitcipher Labs LLP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 410
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a challenge by Zanmai Labs, the company that co-operates the WazirX cryptocurrency platform, against interim orders passed by an arbitral tribunal directing it to provide bank securities for investor claims in the aftermath of a cyber attack that led to a Rs 2,000 crore ($234 million) loss. The tribunal's directions required Zanmai to furnish bank guarantees or deposit funds in escrow to secure claims brought by Bitcipher Labs LLP and Nextgendev Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Input Tax Credit Can't Be Blocked If Credit Balance Is Nil: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Rawman Metal & Alloys vs The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Thane
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 411
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be blocked under Rule 86-A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, if the electronic credit ledger of a taxpayer shows a nil balance on the date of the blocking order. A division bench of Justice Mahesh Sonak and Justice Advait Sethna observed, “Therefore, on a plain reading of the rule, if on the date of issuing the impugned order or on the date of making an order under Rule 86-A blocking the ITC in the Electronic Credit Ledger, no ITC was found to be available there, then, there would be no question of exercising the powers under Rule 86-A or making any order under Rule 86-A to block such non-available ITC in the Electronic Credit Ledger”
Case Title: Nawazuddin Siddiqui vs Shamasuddin Siddiqui
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 412
The Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed the civil suit filed by Actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui against his brother Shamasuddin Siddiqui and his wife Anjana Pandey, demanding Rs 100 crore in damages for alleged defamation and loss of reputation. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain dismissed the suit for non-prosecution. However, a detailed copy of the order is yet to be made available.
Case Title: Roshan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 413
The Bombay High Court has held that minor injuries or medical signs of sexual activity by themselves are insufficient to prove the absence of consent in cases of alleged rape. It was observed that when the prosecution fails to conclusively prove that the victim was a minor and the evidence shows material inconsistencies in her version, the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused.
Case Title: Valsad District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. vs Nagpur & Wardha District Mathadi and Unprotected Labour Board
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 414
The Bombay High Court has held that a board under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers Act, 1969, has no statutory power to review or reopen its earlier orders under Section 13 of the Act. The Court observed that the power of review is not inherent and can only be exercised when expressly conferred by statute or by necessary implication.
Case Title: Devendra Kumar Jain vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 415
The Bombay High Court recently reiterated that the Government Resolution (GR) issued on July 4, 2019 mandating floating of tenders for finalising a developer for redevelopment of a society, is not mandatory but is of directory in nature. A division bench of Justices Shyam Suman and Manjusha Deshpande held that mere non-floating of a tender to appoint a developer will not mean that there has been a violation of the object of some statute.
Case Title: Shri Kulswami Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 416
The Bombay High Court has held that a Test Audit under Section 81(3)(c) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, can only be directed when there is a specific finding, based on an inspection of the audit report, that the audit does not reflect a true and correct picture of the accounts of a cooperative society. Without such inspection and recording of satisfaction, an order for Test Audit is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
Case Title: Ranganth Tulshiram Galande vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 417
The Bombay High Court has held that extending judicial remand beyond the statutory period of 60 days under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused and without passing a reasoned order, is contrary to law and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Suniel V Shetty v John Doe, Ashok Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 418
The Bombay High Court has granted ex-parte ad-interim relief to actor Suniel Shetty over unauthorized use of his persona through AI deepfakes, impersonation, and false endorsements online. A single judge bench of Justice Arif Doctor, while restraining several known and unknown individuals from misusing Shetty's persona, remarked that the acts of exploitation “can best be described as a lethal combination of a depraved mind and the misuse of technology resultantly causing harm to the Plaintiff's personality rights.”
Case Title: Pradip Ramesh Shinde vs Malegaon Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 419
The Bombay High Court has held that the inability to create permanent posts or financial limitations cannot justify employing workers who perform permanent and essential duties on a temporary basis for years together. The Court observed that continuing such workers on short-term or contractual appointments amounts to unfair labour practice and violates the constitutional principles of equality and dignity in employment.
Case Title: The Court Receiver, High Court Bombay vs Mumbai Labour Union
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 420
The Bombay High Court has held that a Court Receiver appointed to sell the assets of a dissolved partnership firm cannot be treated as an “employer” under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the purpose of running the business or making applications for closure. The Court observed that once the Receiver is appointed to sell assets, the business of the firm stands closed, and directions to reopen the factory or pay wages to workers are legally unsustainable.
Case Title: High Court On Its Own Motion vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 421
In an important order, the Bombay High Court on Monday held that henceforth, if there is a death due to potholes or bad roads, the contractors, who constructed the same and also the civic authorities will be held responsible for the said death and they will have to pay compensation to the families of the victims. While fixing the accountability, the High Court ordered the authorities to pay Rs 6 lakh to the families of persons dying due to potholes or bad roads and Rs 50 thousand to Rs 2.50 lakhs for those sustaining injuries.
Case Title: Hetan Ram Gangwani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 422
The Bombay High Court has held that offences relating to illegal handling and adulteration of petroleum products have a direct bearing on public safety, the economy, and State revenue, and therefore cannot be viewed as mere private disputes between parties. It emphasized that such offences affect a vital sector of public life and must be treated with utmost seriousness while considering anticipatory bail applications.
Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Prime Accused In Govind Pansare Murder Case
Case Title: Dr Virendra Tawade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 423
The Kolhapur bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted bail to Virendra Tawade, Sharad Kalaskar and Amol Kale, all three prime accused in the murder case of slain communist leader Govind Pansare.
Case Title: Archroma International (India) Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 424
The Bombay High Court stated that the Deputy Commissioner cannot act beyond the dispute resolution panel (DRP) directions; assessment completed beyond Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the time limit is invalid.
Mortgage, Enforcement And Related Declaratory Reliefs Are Non-Arbitrable: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Capri Global Private Limited vs Divya Enterprises
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 425
The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Sandeep Marne has observed that enforcement of mortgage is a right in rem and any dispute seeking enforcement of mortgage cannot be referred to arbitration. Civil suit will lie for enforcement of such a right in rem.
Case Title: Peerless Securities Limited Vs. Vostok (Fareast) Securities Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 426
The Bombay High Court set aside an arbitral award passed under National Stock Exchange (NSE) bye-laws that had upheld an order passed by Investor Grievance Redressal Panel (IGRP) directing Peerless Securities Limited to pay ₹7.18 lakhs to Vostok (Fareast) Securities Pvt. Ltd. for the losses caused by unauthorised trading in the trading and future segment. The IGRP had held that both the parties were equally responsible for the losses and directed the broker to bear 50% of the liability. This order was further confirmed by the arbitrator. The award had been challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Case Title: Rakhi Sawant vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 427
The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR lodged by celebrity Rakhi Sawant against her ex-husband Adil Durrani under section 498A (cruelty) and 377 (unnatural sex) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh Patil quashed the FIR filed by Sawant against Durrani in 2023 after the couple got embroiled in matrimonial disputes.
Case Title: Nandini Prakash Ingawale vs The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 428
The Bombay High Court has directed stringent action against several nursing colleges across Maharashtra for granting admissions to ineligible students in the Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery (ANM) and General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) courses in violation of prescribed requirements. The Court further ordered the management to refund the full fees collected from students and to pay ₹1 lakh each as compensation for the academic loss suffered by them.
Case Title: Rajuram Sawaji Purohit vs The Shandar Interior Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 429
The Bombay High Court held that pendency of an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) does not prohibit a party from initiating a fresh round of arbitration when an earlier arbitral award has already been set aside. Accordingly, the present application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act was allowed and a sole arbitrator was appointed.
Information Regarding GST Returns Of Company Cannot Be Disclosed Under RTI Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Adarsh Gautam Pimpare vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 430
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (October 14) held that a company's Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns filing cannot be disclosed under the Right To Information (RTI) Act. Sitting at Aurangabad bench, single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar noted that section 158(1) of the GST Act prohibits disclosure of information of GST returns to third parties and that section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act too exempts certain information from being made public unless the information officer is satisfied that the said information must be disclosed as a public interest is involved.
Case Title: South West Port Limited vs State of Goa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 431
The Bombay High Court has held that delegating the procedure for assessing, levying, and collecting cess to the executive under the Goa Cess on Products and Substances Causing Pollution (Green Cess) Rules, 2014, does not amount to excessive delegation of legislative power. The Court observed that since the parent statute clearly lays down the legislative policy, taxable transaction, and rate structure, empowering the executive to frame procedural rules for its implementation is constitutionally valid.
Case Title: Akshay Hari Om Bhatia vs John Doe
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 432
While protecting the personality rights of Bollywood Actor Akshay Kumar, the Bombay High Court has expressed concern over the "realistic" nature of deepfake images and videos being created by using Artificial Intelligence (AI). Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor in his October 15 order said, in such cases of celebrities seeking protection of personality rights, it is alarming to see that the content created by AI is deceptive and so sophisticated that it would not be possible for anyone to understand if it is fake or genuine.
Case Title: Mahindra Defence Systems Limited Versus Ranjana Industries
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 433
The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) filed by Mahindra Defence Systems Ltd. challenging an arbitral award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council in favour of Rajana Industries holding that the award was reasoned, fair and free from perversity.
Case Title: M/s. Mukesh Patel vs Pant Nagar Ganesh Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 434
The Bombay High Court has held that an unrelated third party to a contract cannot be treated as a “veritable party” to the arbitration agreement and hence cannot be compelled to participate in the arbitral proceedings. The Court reiterated that the doctrine enabling non-signatories to be treated as parties to an arbitration agreement applies only where there exists a close relationship, such as within a group of companies, or where there is an alter ego or composite transaction linking the entities.
'Higher Credence Is Given To Award Passed After Detailed Pre-Arbitral Process': Bombay High Court
Case Title: Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited vs L&T-STEC JV Mumbai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 435
The Bombay High Court has held that arbitral awards passed after a detailed pre-arbitral process contractually agreed upon by the parties deserve a higher degree of credibility and judicial deference. The Court refused to grant an unconditional stay on the execution of an arbitral award in favour of the contractor, holding that mere disagreement with the arbitral tribunal's findings does not establish perversity warranting such relief.
Case Title: Dr. Shyam Bihari v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 436
The Bombay High Court has held that once an employee has voluntarily participated in the proceedings before an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, they cannot later challenge the validity of its constitution merely because the outcome of the inquiry is unfavourable.
Bombay High Court Imposes ₹50,000 Cost On Petitioner For Challenging Reserved NCLT Order
Case Title: Shripal Sevantilal Morakhia v National Company Law Tribunal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 437
The Bombay High Court recently imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on a petitioner for filing a writ petition against a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order that had merely been reserved and not yet pronounced. A division bench of Justices Riyaz Chagla and Farhan Dubash held that the petition was not maintainable before the High Court.
Case Title: Suprabha Nitesh Patil @ Suprabha Anant Khot vs Nitesh Gajanan Patil
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 438
The Bombay High Court has held that when two petitions for divorce or judicial separation between the same parties are filed in different courts, the second petition must be transferred to the court where the first petition was filed, in accordance with Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Title: Gaurav Sri Kalyan vs Ram Naresh Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 439
The Bombay High Court has held that relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provides protection of possession, cannot be granted to a person who has no bona fide intention of residing in the suit premises. The Court emphasised that equitable relief under Section 6 must be exercised in favour of a person with a genuine intent to enjoy the property and not for collateral purposes.
Case Title: NESCO Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 440
The Bombay High Court has quashed the acquisition of private land under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, holding that the authorities acted without considering the developer's preferential right to redevelop the property. The Court observed that such actions violate the property rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution and cautioned the authorities against exercising acquisition powers in a manner that disregards the lawful rights of private landlords.
Case Title: Manisha Nimesh Mehta vs Technology Development Board
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 441
The Bombay High Court bench, comprising Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, has held that the lending bank is obligated to consider the MSME revival scheme for classification of account as NPA only if it has been claimed by the MSME in response to the demand notice under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act.
Case Title: Prashant Singh vs Whitehat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 442
The Bombay High Court has recently ordered WhiteHat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. (popularly known as WhiteHat Jr), a subsidiary of embattled ed-tech Byju's, to secure an arbitration award of Rs 80.35 lakh in favour of its former employee, Prashant Singh. The award was granted in an employment dispute following Singh's sudden termination from the company. The Court also directed the company's directors, Byju Raveendran and Riju Raveendran, to comply with the order.
Case Title: West India Continental Oils Fats Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 443
The Bombay High Court has directed the department to pay Rs. 71.31. Lakh interest on refund of illegal IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) collected under RCM (Reverse Charge Mechanism) on ocean freight. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Advait Sethna stated that admittedly, the Petitioner had paid the amount of IGST which the respondents utilized up to the date of grant of refund. Having utilised such amounts of the Petitioner there is no justification, legal or otherwise to deny interest to the Petitioner. To deprive the Petitioner of interest, in the given facts, would run contrary to the well-recognised legal principle of restitution which also finds statutory force under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Case Title: Mumtaz H Khoja vs Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 444
The Bombay High Court has called for a comprehensive overhaul of the document verification process in slum rehabilitation schemes, expressing concern over the ease with which false and fabricated documents are used to claim benefits. The Court also imposed a cost of ₹5,00,000 on the petitioner for suppression of facts and abuse of the process of law.
Case Title: Marvel Sigma Homes Private Limited vs Sanjay Jasubhai Desai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 445
The Bombay High Court held that when the arbitration proceedings are terminated under section 38(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) for non-payment of arbitral fees, the proper remedy is to file application under section 14 of the Arbitration Act and not a writ petition.
Case Title: Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Ashish Gopal Yadao
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 446
The Bombay High Court has held that an application for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot be entertained without verifying that the annual income of the claimant does not exceed Rs. 40,000. The Court observed that the benefit of the structured formula under Section 163A is restricted to a specific class of victims and cannot be claimed by persons whose income exceeds the statutory limit.
Banks Cannot Be Directed To Accept OTS Proposals Or Disclose Evaluation Criteria: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Archana Wani vs Indian Bank
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 447
The Bombay High Court recently affirmed that it cannot compel banks to accept One Time Settlement proposals or disclose the internal benchmarks used to evaluate such proposals, emphasizing that these decisions rest within the commercial wisdom of the bank.
Case Title: Samyak Janhit Seva Sanstha vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 448
Considering that since last 30 years, the Maharashtra Government has failed to protect the Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) at Mumbai's Borivli area, the Bombay High Court recently appointed a High Power Committee (HPC) under former Allahabad High Court Chief Justice (retd.) Dilip Bhosale, to suggest measures to the State to protect that forest region.
Case Title: Srei Equipment Finance Limited vs Rajesh Bajirao Khandewar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 449
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising of Justice M.M. Nerkiar, has held that the consumer complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal is not maintainable if the insolvency of the corporate debtor has been admitted during the continuance of the moratorium. The petition was filed against the order of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal. In the impugned order the commission had directed the petitioner to return the JCB machine to the respondent.
Case Title: Indu Shekhar vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 450
The Bombay High Court has granted a stay on the Notification issued by the DGFT (Directorate General of Foreign Trade) seeking to alter the classification of “Roasted Areca Nuts”. Subsequently, on 15th October, 2025, the DGFT, having realised the mistake, issued a fresh Notification rectifying the same. A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Amit Jamsandekar were addressing a petition seeking a declaration that Notification No.02/2025-26 dated 2nd April 2025, issued by DGFT to alter the classification of “Roasted Areca Nuts”, is ultra vires Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: KMG Wires Private Limited vs The National Faceless Assessment Centre
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 451
The Bombay High Court has quashed an income tax assessment after noting that the Assessing Officer had relied upon non-existent, AI-generated case laws while passing the assessment order. The Court stated that in the era of Artificial Intelligence, the tax authorities cannot blindly rely on such AI-generated results. AI-generated case laws must be cross-verified before using them in quasi-judicial functions.
Case Title: M/s AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 452
The Bombay High Court has held that issues relating to forgery of documents cannot be examined at the stage of deciding the interim custody of a vehicle. The Court observed that for the purpose of granting interim custody, the primary considerations are whether the applicant is the owner and whether the vehicle was seized from their possession.
Case Title: PUT vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 453
The Bombay High Court recently commuted a woman's conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder after she allegedly killed a man who kept harassing her to withdraw her rape compliant against him. A division bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh Deshpande, sitting at the Nagpur seat, quashed and set aside a December 21, 2005 judgment of an Additional Sessions Court in Washim, which convicted the woman for murder of one Madhao Gote.
Case Title:Hersheys India Pvt Ltd vs Kanti Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 454
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside a Rs 75 lakh compensation awarded to Kanti Beverages Pvt. Ltd. against Hersheys India Pvt. Ltd. in a dispute over the contract to manufacture and package the fruit drink brand Jumpin. The court said the compensation was “picked virtually out of the hat” and had no basis.
Case Title: Sanjay Mahadeoprasad Trivedi vs Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 455
The Bombay High Court has held that once a defendant establishes a triable issue in a summary suit, he is entitled to unconditional leave to defend, and the Court cannot impose an onerous or excessive condition such as directing the deposit of a substantial part of the claim amount.
Case Title:
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 456
The Bombay High Court has held that the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot rely solely on Sales Tax Department Data for an income tax addition without granting cross-examination. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe stated that, "when the VAT assessment was pending adjudication, merely relying on the information of the Sales Tax Department without granting an opportunity to the Assessee to even cross-examine the hawala purchasers to confirm the purchases from them violated the basic facts of law amenating to unfairness and breach of the principles of natural justice in making the addition of Rs.2,05,74,750/- as bogus purchases in hands of the Assessee."
Case Title: Ashish Yashwant Harde vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 457
The Bombay High Court has held that when the entire selection process for a recruitment is tainted, there cannot be a policy of pick and choose of certain candidates, as delegation of powers by the Interview Committee to subordinate officers is impermissible in law, and renders the entire selection process invalid. The Court observed that where a Government Resolution prescribes that an act must be performed by specific designated officers, substitution of their representatives is not legally permissible and amounts to vitiation of the process.
Case Title: Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary vs Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 458
The Bombay High Court has held that the explanations (a) to (e) appended to Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for annulment of probate, are illustrative and not exhaustive. The Court clarified that even circumstances not specifically enumerated in these explanations can amount to “just cause” for revoking or annulling a grant of Probate or Letters of Administration, depending on the facts of each case.
Case Title: Everest Entertainment LLP vs Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 459
The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that no one can claim exclusive rights over the name of 'Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj', while rejecting a film producer's plea to stop the release of a Marathi movie using the Maratha ruler's name in its title. A single bench of Justice Amit Jamsandekar made the observation while refusing relief in a plea by Everest Entertainment LLP, the producer of the 2009 Marathi film Mi Shivaji Raje Bhosale Boltoy.
Case Title: Balaji Landmarks LLP Eartwhile vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 460
The Bombay High Court has held that the assessee should not be penalised for the delay in filing the return caused by the chartered accountant's belated advice. The bench noted that the delay is not due to any negligence on the part of the assessee, but to inadequate advice by the Chartered Accountant, a fact admitted by him in his affidavit.
Bombay High Court Lifts Stay On Trial Against Abu Jundal In 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attacks Case
Case Title: Union of India vs Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 461
Clearing the decks for the second phase of trial in the 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attacks case, the Bombay High Court on Monday (November 3) set aside a special court's order which had in 2018 stayed the trial against Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal, the alleged handler of the 10 Pakistani terrorists who had entered the city. Single-judge Justice RN Laddha quashed and set aside the special court's 2018 order and paved way for commencement of trial against Jundal.
Case Title: Riya Suralkar vs Rahul Suralkar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 462
The Bombay High Court has held that a decree of divorce cannot be passed merely because one of the parties remains absent or fails to file a written statement. The Court observed that even in ex parte proceedings, the trial court must independently assess the petitioner's evidence and record findings based on the merits before dissolving a marriage.
Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Kafeel Ahmad, Prime Accused In 2011 Mumbai Triple Blasts Case
Case Title: Kafeel Ahmed Mohd Ayub vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 463
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted bail to Kafeel Ahmad Mohammad Ayub, one of the prime accused in the 2011 Triple Bomb Blast Case in which at least 21 people died while hundreds were left injured in Mumbai. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale considered the fact that the trial in the case is yet to commence and that Kafeel has already spent around 13 years in prison as an undertrial prisoner. The judges further noted that the prosecution had initially listed 700 witnesses for examination during the trial however, in October 2024, the prosecution decided to examine only 400 of the total 700 witnesses.
Case Title: ABC vs Internal Complaints Committee, Akasa Air
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 464
The Bombay High Court held that the mere absence of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in proceedings under the POSH Act does not automatically vitiate the inquiry, particularly where the foundational facts are admitted and no prejudice is demonstrated. The Court observed that proceedings before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) are fact-finding in nature and are not bound by strict evidentiary rules.
Bombay High Court Upholds Order Barring Nagpur Bidi Maker from Using Look-Alike 'Online Bidi' Pack
Case Title: Ifra Sheikh vs M/s Mobile Bidi Traders
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 465
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has upheld an earlier order restraining the city based bidi maker-Rocket Bidi Works from using its 'ATM Bidi No.07' packaging, ruling that it closely resembles the trade dress and design of Mobile Bidi Traders' 'Online Bidi'.
Case Title: Rajinder Singh Sohan Singh vs The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 466
The Bombay High Court on Monday (November 3) held that the Circular issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) in 2018 prohibiting cooking of eatables on footpath with the help of gas, stove or grill, will not apply on food joints like the popular 'Jai Jawan' which are using electronic induction vessels. With this finding, single-judge Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla came to the rescue of an ex-army man, who was stopped from carrying out his business selling fish by frying it in an electronic induction vessel.
Leave Under Clause 12 Of Letters Patent Not Required For Filing Suits U/S 19 CPC: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sameer Gulamnabi Kazi vs Ruhinaz Shakil Shaikh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 467
The Bombay High Court has held that leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is not required for instituting a suit in the High Court's original civil jurisdiction when the case falls under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), i.e., for compensation for wrongs done to a person or movable property. The Court clarified that Clause 12 applies only to suits covered under Sections 16, 17, and 20 CPC, whose applicability to the High Court is expressly excluded by Section 120 CPC.
Bombay High Court Lifts Restraint On UP-Based Popcorn Maize Seller In Brand Dispute With SNN
Case Title: SNT and Company vs M/S Shah Nanji Nagis Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 468
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur has recently set aside a District Court order restraining SNT & Co., a UP-based popcorn maize seller, from using its brand name and packaging, after finding that the court failed to properly compare the overall look and feel of its packaging with that of Shah Nanji Nagis Exports Pvt. Ltd. (SNN), which had accused SNT of copying its design.
Case Title: O2 Renewable Energy VII Private Limited vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 469
The Bombay High Court held that the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) could not amend or review a Multi-Year Tariff (MYT) order without first providing notice and a meaningful opportunity of hearing to all affected stakeholders. The Court observed that when the due procedure was followed by the MERC in passing the original MYT order, the same procedure should have been followed whilst reviewing the MYT order, or else it would lead to grave injustice and chaos.
Case Title: Narshi Mulji Shah vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 470
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday while imposing a cost of Rs 25,000 on a police officer made it clear that the police cannot insist lawyers to disclose details of their 'privileged' communication with their clients. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh Patil were irked to note that an officer of the Matunga Police Station in Mumbai, issued at least six notices to two advocates, representing a senior citizen man in a case related to an FIR lodged against him by his own son.
Case Title: Ramprakash @ Popat Govind Manohar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 471
The Bombay High Court has held that the in-laws or husband of a woman cannot be convicted under charges of cruelty punishable under section 498-A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) merely on the basis of the statements of the wife's parents that their daughter was 'unhappy' in the marriage and often 'wept' in front of them due to the alleged harassment by her in-laws.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Sajjad Ahmed Abdul Aziz Mugal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 472
The Bombay High Court today upheld the conviction of a watchman convicted for the murder of a female corporate lawyer Pallavi Purkayastha, in Mumbai's Wadala area in August 2012.A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale upheld the conviction and the punishment of one Sajjad Ahmed Abdul Aziz Mugal alias Pathan, who was sentenced to life term by a sessions court in the city.
Case Title: Kamlakar Ratnakar Shenoy vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 473
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday, while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking mandatory audio video recording of the proceedings before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC), held that such recordings of the proceedings cannot be used as 'evidence' in any court of law. A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad noted that there is already a prohibition on recording of court proceedings.
Case Title: Jitendra P Maru vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 473
The Bombay High Court has issued notice on a petition seeking CBI probe against Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and its directors, Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani for allegedly stealing over USD 1.55 billion worth of natural gas from neighbouring Oil and Natural Gas Corporations (ONGC) wells in the Krishna Godavari Basin, off the coast of Andhra Pradesh.
Bombay High Court Restrains Surat Company From Using German Entity's 'PETROFER' Mark
Case Title: Petrofer Chemie H.R. Fischer GMBH vs United Petrofer Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 474
The Bombay High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of German lubricant manufacturer Petrofer Chemie H.R. Fischer GmbH & Co. and its Indian licensee Hardcastle Petrofer Private Limited, restraining United Petrofer Limited, a Surat-based company, from using the mark 'PETROFER'. A single bench of Justice Arif Doctor passed the order on November 6, 2025, while deciding an interim plea in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit concerning the registered mark 'PETROFER'.
Bombay High Court Restrains Local Retail Shop From Infringing 'The Body Care' Mark
Case Title: Mohamed Sadique Raisuddin Saifee vs Rizwan Yunus Shaikh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 475
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained a Mumbai-based retail store from using the name “The Body Care Shop”, ruling that it infringes the registered trademark “The Body Care”, owned by a city-based cosmetics business. A single bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh delivered the order on November 7, 2025, in response to a trademark infringement and passing off petition filed by the proprietor of “The Body Care.”
Case Title: M/s. Borosil Glass Works Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Sales Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 476
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that manufacturers cannot claim full sales tax set-off on furnace oil used in producing goods that are partly sold within Maharashtra and partly transferred to branches outside the state, ruling that a 6% reduction must apply under Rule 41D(3)(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
Case Title: Payio Ashiho vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 477
The Bombay High Court on Thursday refused to grant any interim relief to the same sex couple, which has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax (IT) Act, which grants exemption from tax on gifts between heterosexual couples. A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Amit Jamsandekar heard the brief submissions of the petitioner Payio Ashiho and his partner Vivek Divan, who argued that section 56(2)(x), which grants protection to heterosexual couples, is "indirectly discriminatory" against the homosexual partners.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Gulab Ali Sayyad Bannu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 478
The Bombay High Court held that taking cognizance of an offence by a court based on a complaint lodged by an unauthorised person under Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, goes to the root of the matter and cannot be treated as a mere irregularity. The Court ruled that when the law specifically designates the categories of persons competent to lodge a complaint, any cognizance taken on a report by an unauthorised officer vitiates the entire trial.
Case Title: Om Swayambhu Siddhivinayak vs Harischandra Dinkar Gaikwad
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 479
The Bombay High Court has held that the absence of an independent arbitration clause in a supplemental agreement, when the principal agreement contains an arbitration clause, does not render the dispute non-arbitrable. The Court ruled that a supplemental agreement, merely ancillary to the principal agreement, which seeks to record that the consideration under the Development Agreement stands discharged, is an adjectival element of the substance of the Development Agreement.
Bombay High Court Restrains 'Metro Footwear' from Infringing Metro Brands' Mark
Case Title: Metro Brands Limited v. Metro Footwear
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 480
The Bombay High Court has recently restrained Metro Footwear Store from using the mark “Metro Footwear”, ruling that it infringed the registered “METRO” trademark of Metro Brands Limited. The order was passed on November 10, 2025, by a single bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh while hearing an interim application alleging trademark infringement and passing off.
Case Title: Iqbal Trading Company v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 481
The Bombay High Court has held that an arbitral award passed without granting access to relevant documents or materials to one of the parties amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice and due process. The Court observed that the arbitral tribunal's refusal to supply such documents deprived the party of a fair opportunity to defend its case, thereby rendering the arbitral proceedings fundamentally flawed.
Case Title: Purvi Mukesh Gada vs Mukesh Popatlal Gada
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 482
The Bombay High Court recently enhanced a woman's monthly maintenance from Rs 50 thousand to Rs 3.50 lakhs after noting that her businessman husband from Pune along with his two sons, lived a lavished lifestyle while the divorced wife, who spent 16 years with him, now struggles to earn Rs 1 lakh a month and take care of herself and her daughter.
Case Title: Manoj Gokulchand Seksaria vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 483
The Bombay High Court on Friday held that settlement of adjudication proceedings with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) cannot absolve an accused from criminal liability in cases involving serious economic offences. The Court said that paying disgorgement or settlement fees under SEBI's consent mechanism cannot be a basis for quashing criminal proceedings launched by the CBI for alleged IPO manipulation.
Bombay High Court Halts Production And Sale Of Fake 'Gold Flake' Cigarettes
Case Title: ITC Limited vs Abbas Mohammad Shaikh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 484
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained individuals in Raigad from manufacturing and selling counterfeit 'Gold Flake' cigarettes, following a copyright and trademark infringment suit by ITC Limited. The order will remain in effect until December 10, 2025.
Case Title:
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 485
The Bombay High Court held that bifurcation of a cooperative society under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, does not require prior permission from CIDCO, and that registration of a newly constituted society itself effects the necessary transfer of assets and liabilities as contemplated by the statute. The Court observed that importing an external approval requirement where the statute is silent would be contrary to the legislative scheme.
Case Title: Haridas Shankar Gaikwad v. Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 486
The Bombay High Court held that preventive detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) cannot be invoked when the detenu is already on bail in the very same offence forming the basis of the detention, without the detaining authority considering whether the bail conditions are sufficient to prevent alleged prejudicial activities. The Court observed that when a person is enlarged on bail by a Competent Criminal Court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinising the validity of an order of preventive detention.
Case Title: M/S Suman S Construction vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 487
On November 14th, 2025, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Suman Construction (“assessee” hereinafter), a government-registered civil contractor, which had challenged the service tax demand raised on road construction works for government departments. The principal issue before the Court was whether the assessee could invoke a rectification application under Section 74 of the Finance Act to claim service-tax exemption for such government road projects, instead of filing a statutory appeal against the Order.
Case Title: SS Trading Company Limited vs SNC Trading Company
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 488
The Bombay High Court held that an arbitrator who suspended the proceedings indefinitely on the ground of non-payment of revised fees and thereafter failed to conduct hearings must be deemed to have withdrawn from office under section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). The court further held that the arbitrator's mandate had also expired by efflux of time under section 29A of the Arbitration Act thereby necessitating the appointment of a substitute arbitrator.
Case Title: Maharashtra Police Academy vs Bharati Yashwant Salve
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 489
The Bombay High Court held that the Maharashtra Police Academy (MPA) is an “industry” within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and upheld the direction of the Industrial Court granting reinstatement with continuity of service to the respondent, who had worked as a Computer Operator on daily wages. The Court observed that the functions performed by the Academy were not confined to sovereign activities and that clerical or computer-related duties undertaken in such an institution fall squarely within the definition of “industry”.
Case Title: Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kamalapur vs Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation (Investigation) Pune
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 490
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the Charitable Trust “Savitribai Phule Shikshan Prasarak” seeking quashing and setting aside of the Order passed by the Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation (Investigation) Pune whereby the Trust/Petitioner's application for condonation of delay 509 days in filing its Form 9A for the Assessment Year 2022-23 was rejected.
Case Title: India Yamaha Motor P Limited vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 491
The Bombay High Court has held that a rebate under Rule 18 Central Excise Rules, 2002, cannot be denied without determining the tax liability on exported goods, and has remanded Yamaha's rebate claim to the principal commissioner for fresh consideration.
Bombay High Court Blocks Sale Of Diabetes Drug ELGIMET For Similarity To GLIMET's Mark
Case Title:
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 492
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday restrained the use of the diabetes drug mark ELGIMET, finding it deceptively similar to the registered mark GLIMET, and confirmed an interim injunction against its sale and manufacture. A single bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, observed that “GLIMET” and “ELGIMET” were phonetically and structurally similar and that an average consumer with imperfect recollection could easily confuse the two.
Case Title: Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Versus M/s. SRC Company Infra Private Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 493
The Bombay High Court set aside a majority arbitral award that had directed Konkan Railway to bear Royalty Charges for earth used in a Madhya Pradesh project holding that the arbitral tribunal acted in contravention of the contractual terms and committed patent illegality by relying on internal tender committee minutes to infer a different intention of the parties.
Case Title: Hemant Karamchand Rohera vs Controller General of Patents and Designs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 494
The Bombay High Court has set aside the rejection of a patent application for a medical therapeutic device, directing the Patent Office to reconsider the matter afresh. The court found that the Patent Office had failed to follow mandatory statutory procedures under the Patents Act before refusing the application.
Bombay High Court Restrains City Hotel From Infringing Five-Star Hotel Chain Orchid's Trademark
Case Title: Kamat Hotels India Limited vs Orchid Hotel and Hostel
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 495
The Bombay High Court has restrained “Orchid Hotel and Hostel” from using the word “Orchid” for its hospitality services, after finding that the name infringes the registered trademark of Kamat Hotels (India) Limited, which runs the five-star hotel chain “The Orchid”. The ad-interim injunction will remain in force until December 3, 2025.
Case Title: Shabana Aijaz Khan Vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward- 3(1)(1)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 496
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the reassessment notice did not follow the mandate that the Faceless Assessing Officer only has the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. It was further stated that even international taxation matters could be made subject to the faceless regime.
CGST Act | Bombay High Court Stays GST Demand Order Over Delayed Service Of Showcause Notice
Case Title: Octantis Services Pvt Ltd. Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 497
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to the assessee by staying the operation of a GST Demand Order The Bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Amit Jamsandekar was hearing a writ preferred by the assessee seeking to quash the GST demand order challenging the Show Case Notice to be time barred per Section 73(2) and 73(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Bombay High Court Grants Fresh Relief To Nova Cream, Orders Rival To Cease Using Disputed Packaging
Case Title: Dr. Ashok M Bhat vs RV Pharmaceuticals
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 498
The Bombay High Court has pulled up RV Pharmaceuticals, manufacturers of Moon cosmetics, for allegedly violating injunctions that had stopped it from using packaging said to imitate the dark green and black trade dress of the Nova cosmetic brand, granting fresh ad-interim relief to ensure the company does not continue using the disputed packaging.
Case Title: Ramrao Tukaram Patil vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 499
The Bombay High Court held that a writ petition containing false statements and suppression of material facts cannot be entertained on merits and must be dismissed at the threshold, as such conduct amounts to misuse of the judicial process. The Court emphasised that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and founded on fairness, equity and full disclosure, and that a litigant approaching the Court is expected to do so with clean hands.
Case Title:
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 500
The Bombay High Court has directed the Department to refund the Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Compensation Cess to the assessee observing that a manufacturer exporting goods is entitled to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit(ITC) of Compensation Cess, as Section 16(3)(b) of the integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 must apply to both the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and Compensation Cess.
Case Title: Asian Paints Limited vs Vinod Satyaprakashji Mittal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 501
The Bombay High Court has temporaily restrained a rival paint and wall-putty manufacturer from using the marks “ASIANGOLD” and “SUPREME GLOSS” after finding that they infringe Asian Paints' registered trademarks and copyrighted artwork. A single bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh confirmed an earlier ad-interim injunction on November 18, 2025, noting that manufacturer Vinod Satyaprakashji Mittal had neither appeared despite service nor filed any reply to challenge the court's prima facie findings.
Case Title: Ketan Parekh vs SEBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 502
The Bombay High Court has recently quashed an order directing former stockbroker Ketan Parekh, who is facing prosecution arising from alleged large-scale manipulation of the securities market in the late 1990s and early 2000s, to deposit Rs 27.06 crore as a condition for travelling abroad. A single bench of Justice Nizamoodin Jamadar held that the Special Court's direction lacked a reasonable nexus with ensuring Parekh's presence at trial.
Case Title: Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy LLP vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 503
The Bombay High Court has set aside a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against a company that had ceased to exist due to conversion into a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), holding that reopening of assessment against a non-existent entity is “illegal and bad-in-law”.
Case Title: The Bandra Holy Family Hospital Society vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 504
The Bombay High Court has held that the obligation of children to look after and maintain their parents is an unconditional statutory duty under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and is not dependent on whether the child is in possession of, or will inherit, the parent's property. The Court observed that abandonment or neglect of an elderly and medically fragile parent strikes at the heart of constitutional and statutory guarantees ensuring dignity, health and a meaningful life for senior citizens.
Insolvency Proceedings Can't Be Abused To Evade Family Court's Maintenance Order: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Mehul Jagdish Trivedi vs Manisha Mehul Trivedi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 505
The Bombay High Court has held that proceedings under the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, cannot be invoked as a mechanism to frustrate or indirectly obtain a stay of a Family Court's maintenance order. The Court observed that insolvency relief cannot be granted to undermine a subsisting maintenance order, and clarified that insolvency proceedings cannot be used to obstruct the execution of Family Court directions.
Case Title: M/s Duphar Interfran Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 506
The Bombay High Court has held that the assignment of the well-known trademark “Crocin” by Duphar Interfran Ltd. to SKB Plc (UK) amounted to a sale “in the course of export” of intangible goods, and therefore could not be taxed as a local sale within the State of Maharashtra under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Case Title: M/s. Atria Constructions vs Pune Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 507
The Bombay High Court has held that municipal authorities cannot be used as instruments to settle private contractual disputes and criticized the arbitrary, hasty and high-handed action of Pune Municipal Corporation officials in issuing a stop-work notice without any legal basis or proper inquiry. The Court found that the stop-work notice was issued in complete disregard of statutory procedure and was solely due to complaints by certain unknown persons, without verifying the records or conducting any site inspection.
'Investigating Agency Has No Power To Debit Freeze Bank Account U/S 106 BNSS': Bombay High Court
Case Title: Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 508
The Bombay High Court has held that an investigating agency has no authority to debit freeze or attach a bank account under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court observed that Section 106 merely empowers the police to seize property for the purpose of investigation, whereas attachment of proceeds of crime can be effected only under Section 107 upon an order of the Magistrate.
Case Title: Harpal Chhabra vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 509
The Bombay High Court on Monday (November 24) stayed proceedings in an FIR lodged against five senior citizens booked for allegedly playing cards in their house under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The court was hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR lodged under Sections 4 (which punishes keeping of a common gaming house) and 12(A) of the Act. Section 12A states that a Police Officer may apprehend without warrant any person who prints, publishes, sells, distributes or in any manner circulates in any news-paper, news-sheet or other document or any news or information with the intention of aiding or facilitating gaming.
Case Title: Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Charity Fund Vs. Income Tax, Officer (Exemption)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 510
The Bombay High Court has held that reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 & 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated to re-open issues that were already scrutinized and accepted during the original assessment, observing that a mere change of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer does not constitute reason to believe nor permit reassessment.
Case Title: Dr Rajendra Sadanand Burma vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 511
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (November 25) asked officials of the tribal development, women and child development and the public health departments to visit Melghat area to assess various medical care and health issues faced by persons living therein and a sought a report on the same.
Case Title: Fahim Arshad Mohammad Yusuf Ansari vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 512
The Maharashtra government on Tuesday informed the Bombay High Court that Fahim Arshad Mohammad Yusuf Ansari, who was acquitted in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case, is free to take up any employment that does not mandate a police clearance certificate. Ansari moved the HC seeking a 'Police Clearance Certificate' so that he can engage in some employment to earn his livelihood.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh Through Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly Secretariat vs Tata Consultancy Services Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 513
The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition filed by the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly Secretariat under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) thereby upholding an arbitral award passed in favor of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (TCS) concerning the conduct of an online recruitment examinations for Review Officers and Assistant Review Officers.
Case Title: V Hotels Limited vs The National Faceless Assessment Centre,Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 514
The Bombay High Court has recently reaffirmed that income-tax assessment proceedings for any period prior to the approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) stand extinguished once the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approves the plan, ruling that the tax department cannot initiate or continue such proceedings thereafter.
Case Title: Aristo Pharmaceutical Private Limited Versus Healing Pharma India Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 515
The Bombay High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction to Aristo Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. in its trademark infringement and passing-off suit against Healing Pharma India Pvt. Ltd., ruling that pharmaceutical companies cannot claim exclusivity over trademarks derived from International Non-Proprietary Names (INNs).
Case Title: BT Kadlag Constructions vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 516
The Bombay High Court held that the Employees Provident Fund Organisation cannot issue a prohibitory order under Section 8-F of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, without first issuing a notice to the debtor of the employer and giving an opportunity to file a statement on oath, as mandated under Section 8-F(3)(i) and (vi). The Court observed that the impugned order was passed in complete violation of the statutory scheme and principles of natural justice.
Case Title: M/s Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 517
The Bombay High Court has held that an importer cannot be made liable to pay customs duty on goods that were never cleared for home consumption and were never received by the importer. The Court observed that, under Sections 13, 23 and 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, duty paid in anticipation of clearance becomes refundable once it is established that the goods were short-landed or lost before clearance.
State Can Verify Caste Certificates Of Central Employees Availing Reservation: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Anand Shankarrao Kolhatkar vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 518
The Bombay High Court has held that the State Legislature is fully competent to enact provisions requiring verification of caste certificates under Sections 6(1) and 6(3) of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, even in respect of employees of the Central Government, where such employees derive reservation benefits on the strength of caste certificates issued by State authorities. The Court rejected the contention that the State legislature had encroached upon the Union's domain relating to services under Entry 70 of List I.
Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief To 'JIO'; Restrains Taxi Operator From Using 'JIO Taxi' Mark
Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited vs Abhay Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 519
The Bombay High Court has barred a Jharkhand-based taxi operator from using the name “JIO TAXI” after finding that it prima facie infringes Reliance Industries Ltd.'s well-known “JIO” trademark. A single bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh passed the order on November 24, 2025, granting an ad-interim injunction in Reliance's favour. The restriction will remain in force until December 16, 2025
Case Title: Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 vs Citron Infraprojects Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 520
The Bombay High Court has held that prior approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act is not a mere technical or procedural formality, and that mechanical, en masse sanction without application of mind vitiates the entire assessment under Section 153A.
Case Title: Court on its own motion vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 521
The Bombay High Court on Friday constituted a five member team to conduct an independent inspection of two areas within Mumbai to check if the construction sites are duly complying with the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC's) guidelines to bring down air pollution in the city.
Case Title: Dhondu Sakharam Tambe vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 522
The Bombay High Court held that circumstantial evidence can be relied upon to determine whether an “untoward incident” occurred under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, especially since the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to provide compensation to victims and their families. The Court observed that non-reporting of the incident to railway authorities at the earliest point cannot by itself defeat a genuine claim when consistent circumstantial evidence establishes the occurrence of the incident.
Case Title: Evershine Enterprises Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Finance
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 523
The Bombay High Court has held that the Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) is mandatorily required to verify and consider pre-deposits and amounts recovered during investigation under Form SVLDRS-3 (final statement issued by the Designated Committee showing the exact amount payable by the taxpayer under the Scheme)
Case Title: Regus South Mumbai Business Centre Private Limited vs Marie Gold Realtors Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 524
The Bombay High Court has observed that the “shall endeavour” clause can amount to an enforceable obligation in the context of construction contracts. While mere failure to achieve revenue projections does not constitute a breach of the “shall endeavour” clause but not making best efforts to achieve projections in the business plan amounts to a breach of the clause.
Case Title: Pritam Dinkar Adhav vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 525
The Bombay High Court recently delivered a split verdict on the issue of powers of the Central Government to substitute a nominated member of a Cantonment Board. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale delivered divergent views on the issue pertaining to the removal of a member of Deolali Cantonment Board in Nashik, before the end of her tenure, which was to complete on February 10, 2026.
Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging WeWork India IPO, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Petitioner
Case Title:Vinay Bansal vs SEBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 526
The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed two petitions challenging the IPO of WeWork India, bringing an end to an attempt by two retail investors to stop or modify the company's public issue over allegations of inadequate disclosures.
SEBI Acted With 'Due Care And Caution' In Clearing WeWork India IPO: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Hemant Kulshrestha and Vinay Bansal vs Securities and Exchange Board of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 527
The Bombay High Court on Monday observed that SEBI had exercised “due care and caution” in clearing the WeWork India IPO, while dismissing two petitions that alleged the regulator failed to act on complaints of inadequate disclosures in the offer documents of the Indian arm of global co-working space brand.
Case Title: Sana Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Madan Kishan Gurow
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 528
The Bombay High Court has recently held that authorities and tribunals under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) cannot adjudicate title disputes between allottees or grant declaratory and injunctive reliefs, ruling that such powers lie exclusively with civil courts.
Bombay High Court Stays Trial Court Proceedings Against Comedian Munawar Faruqui In Hukkah Bar Case
Case Title: Munawar Faruqui vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 529
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday stayed the proceedings pending before a trial court against standup comic Munawar Faruqui, who along with 14 others was booked in a case of smoking hukka. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh Patil has asked the prosecution to submit before it the chargesheet, so as to ascertain, what material is placed on record against Faruqui.
Case Title: Shakil Hamid Mansuri vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 530
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday deferred the declaration of results for the Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats from December 3, 2025 till December 21, 2025. A division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Rajnish Vyas sitting at Nagpur seat, made it clear that the results for polls to be held on December 2 and December 20, need to be declared together on December 21 itself and not in a "phased" manner.
Bombay High Court To Examine If Non-Advertised Project Need Mandatory RERA Registration
Case Title: Goldendreams Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Saffron Infradev Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 531
The Bombay High Court has stayed a Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal order requiring a builder to register two additional wings of its real estate project in Maharashtra, noting that the central issue of whether registration under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act becomes mandatory when no units are advertised or offered for sale requires examination.
Case Title: Imran Humanyun Chandiwala vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 532
The Bombay High Court has held that authorities cannot override or ignore the findings of the Customs Settlement Commission while taking administrative action. The Court ruled that once the Commission accepts the disclosure, settles duty liability and grants immunity under Section 127H of the Customs Act, its order becomes final and conclusive under Section 127J, and no other authority can indirectly reopen the customs issue.
Case Title: Nishant Pradeep Agrawal vs Anti Terrorist Squad, Lucknow
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 533
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) on Monday set aside the life imprisonment sentence awarded to a former Senior System Engineer at BrahMos Aerospace, who had been accused of interacting with a Pakistan-operated fake LinkedIn account and installing certain malwares which gave external access to sensitive files.
Case Title: Kailash Masala Industries vs Organic Khandeshi Food Products
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 534
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has dismissed an appeal by Kailash Masala Industries, which had challenged a trial court's refusal to grant the company interim protection in its trademark and passing-off suit against Organic Khandeshi Food Products over the trademark 'Mahalaxmi' for its Masala Products.
Bombay High Court Upholds ₹96 Lakh Award Against TCS In Hardware Supply Dispute With Inspira
Case Title: Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. vs Inspira IT Products Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 535
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday upheld an arbitral award directing Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. to pay Rs. 96.20 lakh to Inspira IT Products Pvt. Ltd. for the loss suffered on 207 servers and monitors that Inspira purchased for TCS but could not deliver after TCS failed to finalise delivery locations. The court rejected cross-appeals filed by both the parties.
Case Title: Vinod Pundlikrao Chinchalkar vs State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 536
In a stinging rebuke, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) on Tuesday came down heavily on the State Election Commission (SEC) for its 'last-minute' decision to postpone elections in several Nagar Panchayats and Nagar Parishads areas across the State. While the Court stood short of quashing the postponement orders to avoid derailing the democratic process, it issued a crucial directive to safeguard electoral purity and stopped declaration of phased wise results in line with the Nagpur bench's recent order.
Case Title: Hand Babu vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 537
The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted bail to former Delhi University Professor Hany Babu, who has been booked for his alleged role in the Elgar Parishad-Bhima Koregaon conspiracy case. A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale granted him bail.
Case Title: India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 538
The Bombay High Court has set aside the Union Government's order denying India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. a rebate of ₹3.26 crore towards National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) paid on exported motorcycles, holding that the authority failed to examine the core statutory requirements under the Central Excise Rules.
Case Title: M/s Unique Enterprises vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 539
The Bombay High Court has set aside the SVLDRS-3 Form issued to M/s Unique Enterprises, holding that the case should have been assessed under the “Litigation” category of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and not under the “Arrears” category. The Court ruled that the duty demand in the case had not attained finality, and therefore the assessee was entitled to 70% relief under Section 124(1)(a) of the Scheme.
Bombay High Court Bars Chemco Plast From Using “CHEMCO” As Trademark, Allows Use As Domain Name
Case Title: Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt Ltd. vs M/s Chemco Plast
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 540
The Bombay High Court has partly granted an interim injunction in favour of Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd, restraining rival plastic manufacturer Chemco Plast from using the marks “CHEMCO” or “CHEMCO PLAST” as trademarks. However, the Court declined to stop the firm from using “Chemco” as its trade name or domain name, citing its long and concurrent use.
Case Title: Tukaram vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 541
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) on Tuesday observed that posting objectionable content on social media platforms to defame a woman can also constitute the serious offences of 'Stalking' (Section 354-D) and 'Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty' (Section 354) under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh Deshpande added a prior relationship or a financial dispute does not grant a man a 'license' to post objectionable content to harass a woman online.
Nescafé Premix Is 'Instant Coffee', Attracts Lower Sales Tax Rate: Bombay High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra vs Nestle India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 542
The Bombay High Court in a matter concerning classification of Nescafé Premix and if it was exigible to sales tax at the rate of 8% or 16%, has held that a premix resulting in 'Coffee and Instant drinks' would be classifiable as such, attracting lower rate of tax. (8% not 16%).
Case Title: Masjid A. Gousiya vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 543
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) recently took Suo Moto cognizance of the 'recurring' issue of noise pollution in Nagpur city and explicitly named prominent clubs, temples and Dargahs adding that activities like 'bhajans', 'azans' and various celebrations and events are conducted in violation of the law.
Case Title: Nainesh Sanghvi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 544
The Bombay High Court held that an authorised officer under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, becomes functus officio the moment a competent authority replaces him, irrespective of whether the officer had personal knowledge of the substitution. The Court observed that administrative orders take legal effect when issued by the competent authority, not when they are communicated or “come to the knowledge” of the concerned officer. Any action taken after cessation of authority is without jurisdiction and void.
Case Title: Accost Media LLP vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Mumbai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 545
The Bombay High Court has held that the limitation period for filing a rectification application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act begins when the assessee receives the ITAT order, and not merely from the date on which the order is passed. The Court ruled that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had completely misdirected itself in rejecting a rectification plea by Accost Media LLP as time-barred.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai vs Sudha Instant Soft Drinks and Essences, Nagpur
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 546
In a significant ruling on product classification under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Bombay High Court has held that canned pineapple slices, pineapple tidbits and fruit cocktail preserved in sugar syrup cannot be treated as “fresh fruits” for the purpose of Entry A-23 of the Schedule to the Act.
Case Title: Niket Mehta vs Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 547
The Bombay High Court has held that where a suit is instituted by a public trust for recovery of compensation or other reliefs against an erstwhile trustee in respect of trust property, such suit must comply with Sections 50 and 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and cannot be instituted without first obtaining the written consent of the Charity Commissioner. The Court held that since the defendant was consistently described as a trustee, permanent trustee, or erstwhile trustee of the Trust, the consent requirement was attracted.
Case Title: Sheikh Rafique Sk. Gulab vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 548
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has held that the act of catching hold of a minor girl's hand, when accompanied by an offer of money in exchange of sexual favours, squarely falls within the definition of 'Sexual Assault' under Section 7 POCSO Act which is punishable under Section 8.
Case Title: Bhupatbhai Ravjibhailukhi vs Tormal Dedraj Sainik @ Mali (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 549
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition under section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) filed by the Developer-partners of Lukhi Associates challenging a 2020 arbitral award arising out of disputes under a 2010 Development Agreement with the Saini family.
Case Title: Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 550
In a significant observation, the Bombay High Court has ruled that arrest is an 'individualised' act and therefore, the investigating agencies cannot justify the arrest of multiple suspects using 'collective' or 'group-based' reasons. Interpreting the mandate of Section 35 BNSS, the Court held that reasons for arrest cannot be a "mechanical reproduction" of statutory clauses; instead, they must be specific 'conclusions' reached by the Police Officer based on the facts of each case.
Revenue Cannot Adjudicate Decade-Old SCNs On NPV Sales Tax Retention: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Computer Graphics Private Limited vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 551
The Bombay High Court at Goa has set aside two show cause notices issued to a manufacturer seeking to levy central excise duty on the differential amount of sales tax/VAT retained by it under a Net Present Value (NPV) incentive scheme, holding that the Revenue cannot be permitted to adjudicate stale notices after an unexplained and inordinate delay.
Case Title: Rao and Sapru Films Pvt. Ltd. vs Alok Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 552
The Bombay High Court has restrained singer-composer Alok Kumar from releasing, performing or monetising ten songs that Rao & Sapru Films Pvt. Ltd. says were created for the company under a series of agreements. The court also ordered Kumar to take down the songs he uploaded online and to hand over all master recordings and related material to the production house.
Case Title: Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs Additional Collecter & Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 553
The Bombay High Court on Monday (December 8) held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial act which is meant for safeguarding the rights of the vulnerable senior citizens and that it cannot be misused (by the senior citizens) as a tool for seeking eviction of their children without following the law.
Case Title: Akhil Anil Chitre vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 554
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against then Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) leader Akhil Chitre, who was booked in December 2020 for allegedly assaulting a lawyer, who obtained orders against the party and its workers, who were then demanding Amazon to use Marathi language in its daily communications.
Case Title: Tata Communications Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 555
The Bombay High Court has strongly criticised the Maharashtra Government for defending an order that was contrary to settled law, holding that the State had misused public funds by compelling Tata Communications Limited (TCL) to litigate for nearly a decade against a patently unsustainable demand. The Court held that the impugned orders imposing a liability of over ₹26 crores as “unearned income” were fundamentally flawed, legally untenable, and passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) vs Milan Kavin Parikh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 556
The Bombay High Court has held that no income addition can be made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 unless incriminating material is found during a search, even if the Revenue relies on information received from foreign authorities.
Case Title: Marico Limited vs M/s. Minolta Natural Care
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 557
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained Minolta Natural Care and its associated entities from using packaging and bottle designs that the court found deceptively similar to Marico's Parachute Jasmine/ Parachite Advansed Jasmine Hair Oils.
NSEL Scam: Bombay High Court Quashes Special Court's 'Mechanical' Summons To Amit Rathi
Case Title: Amit Anand Rathi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 558
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday set aside summons issued in 2019 to Amit Rathi and Anand Rathi Commodities Ltd. in a criminal case stemming from the 2013 collapse of the National Spot Exchange Ltd. (NSEL). A single bench of Justice RN Laddha ruled that the Special MPID Court's order in the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) case was mechanical and failed to provide any sufficient reasons for it to proceed against Rathi.
Case Title: Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd. vs Jagpin Breweries Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 559
The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained Madhya Pradhesh-based Jagpin Breweries Limited, a manufacturer of mass-market beer brands, from using the mark “COX 5000” or any other beer mark containing the numeral “5000”.
Case Title: ICICI Bank Limited vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 560
The Bombay High Court has recently quashed the prosecution and 2009 summons issued by a Pune court to former ICICI Bank chief Chanda Kochhar and four senior officials in a case alleging octroi avoidance on imported gold coins. However, the case will proceed against the bank itself
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Award Ordering Sharekhan To Refund Rs 4.87 Lakh In Brokerage
Case Title: Sharekhan Limited vs Darshini Shah
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 561
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award that had directed Sharekhan Limited, a broking firm, to refund Rs 4.87 lakh in brokerage to its client Darshini Shah. The court held that the arbitral tribunal had irrationally treated the same 2007 contract between the parties as valid for permitting trades but invalid for charging brokerage and that such a conclusion was fundamentally inconsistent with Indian contract law.
Case Title: Arrow Business Development Consultants Pvt Ltd vs Union Bank of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 562
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a secured creditor cannot proceed with a SARFAESI sale once an interim moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code comes into force. It rulled that the Union Bank of India was not entitled to accept balance payments or issue a sale certificate after the personal insolvency process against the borrower had commenced.
Case Title: Frazer Mascarenhas vs National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 563
The Bombay High Court on Thursday disposed of a petition filed in December 2021 by the next of kin of Father Stan Swamy, who sought clearing the now deceased (Swamy's) name from the Elgar Parishad - Bhima Koregaon case.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Financial Companies From Infringing 'FEDEX' Trademark
Case Title: Federal Express Corporation vs Fedex Securities Private Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 564
The Bombay High Court has restrained Maharashtra-based FedEx Securities Pvt. Ltd. and its group companies from using the word “FEDEX” in their corporate names, holding that the term is globally and exclusively associated with Federal Express Corporation, the US logistics major.
Case Title: Imran Humayun Chandiwala vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 565
The Bombay High Court has held that where a vehicle has been purchased by an innocent subsequent buyer, and the buyer has fulfilled all statutory requirements, including payment of customs duty, interest, and fine imposed by the Settlement Commission, the vehicle's registration cannot be cancelled merely because the initial registration was obtained on the basis of forged documents. The Court observed that the purchaser cannot be made to suffer consequences of a fraud committed by others, particularly when the authorities failed to consider the binding findings of the Settlement Commission under the Customs Act.
Case Title: Bhagwat Sopan Bankar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 566
The Bombay High Court bench at Aurangabad on Friday quashed and set aside the order of the Maharashtra Government by which it appointed an Administrator to look after the management of the Shani Shingnapur Temple in Ahmednagar (now changed to Ahilyanagar) and removing the erstwhile Management Committee elected under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act.
Case Title: Xami Dha Tirakita Kaye vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 567
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (December 11) came to the aide of a seven-year-old girl and ordered the authorities to issue an Indian Passport and also to declare her an 'Indian Citizen' under the Citizenship Act of 1955. A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Ashish Chavan was hearing a plea filed by one Xami Dha Tirakita Kaye, a seven year old girl, who petitioned the Goa bench for protecting her 'citizenship rights.'
GST Abolished Ad Tax, Doesn't Bar Municipal Licence Fees on Hoardings: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Manoj Madhav Limaye vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 568
The Bombay High Court recently held that the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax regime does not take away the power of municipal corporations in Maharshtra to levy licence fees on hoardings and sky-signs. The court clarified that GST abolished only advertisement tax and not regulatory charges imposed under municipal law.
Case Title: Godavari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Sindhi vs Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 569
The Bombay High Court has stayed the entire income tax demand raised against a state-funded educational trust, holding that the tax authorities erred in bringing gross receipts to tax without accounting for expenditure.
Case Title: Bombay Textile Research Association Versus Nilkanth Enterprise
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 570
The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) upholding a 2017 arbitral award directing specific performance of a long negotiated development transaction concerning 57,000 sq. m. of land in Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai.
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane vs Vrushali Sanjay Shinde
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 571
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an income tax appeal filed by the Revenue, holding that an approval granted under Section 153D of the Act, which does not reflect even minimal application of mind, is vitiated in law and renders the consequential proceedings invalid.
Case Title: MAK vs AKK
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 572
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court recently held that just because a husband earns well would not mean that a proportionate part of his income is to be awarded to his and children as maintenance. Single-judge Justice Manjusha Deshpande while holding so, dismissed the plea of a woman, who sought Rs 1 lakh monthly maintenance for each of her two daughters.
Case Title: Kotak Securities Limited vs Gajanan Ramdas Rajguru
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 573
The Bombay High Court has held that profits earned by a client by utilising an increased trading margin erroneously reflected due to a technical glitch in the broker's system cannot be treated as “unjust enrichment”. The Court observed that mere availability of margin created an opportunity to trade, but the profits ultimately arose from the client's skill and risk-taking, and not automatically from the margin itself.
Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Kataria Insurance Brokers From Using 'KATARIA' Trademark
Case Title: Bhavesh Suresh Kataria vs Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 574
The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained Ahmedabad-based Kataria Insurance Brokers Private Limited from using the name “KATARIA INSURANCE” or any other name, mark or website containing the word “KATARIA” for insurance-related services. The court held that such use is deceptively similar to the registered trademark of Mumbai-based Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy.
Case Title: Air India Ltd. vs Girish Basrimalani
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 575
Holding that it was deceptively similar to Air India's VISTARA airline brand, the Bombay High Court has directed the removal of the trademark “VISTARRAAH” from the Trade Marks Register. Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor passed the order on December 10, 2025, while allowing a rectification petition filed by Air India. The Court held that permitting the disputed mark to remain on the register would be contrary to law and would undermine the integrity and purity of the trademark system.
Case Title: The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 576
The Bombay High Court recently took Suo Motu cognisance of the plight of pregnant women in hilly areas of Maharashtra wherein women are compelled to deliver children at home and use 'shaving blades' to cut the umbilical chords. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten Venegavkar noted from news item published in a Marathi Daily which stated that the Maharashtra Government has spent over Rs 771 crores in the last 1.5 years to avoid the death of pregnant women, foetus, children etc.
Bombay High Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Eight Accused In Pune Porsche Car Hit-And-Run Case
Case Title: Aditya Avinash Sood vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 577
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected the bail applications of 8 accused named in the Pune Porsche hit and run case, wherein two persons were killed in the tragic accident. Single-judge Justice Shyam Chandak dismissed the bail applications of eight accused including the father of the prime accused, a juvenile, who was driving the car at the time of the incident.
Case Title: Sandeep Sule vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 578
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday sought to know from Maharashtra and also the Union Governments to clarify their stand on the query as to can a Bill sent for Presidential assent by the Governor, can be withdrawn on the aide and advice of the council of ministers even before the President of India takes any decision on the same.
Bhima Koregaon Case: Bombay High Court Permits Accused Gautam Navlakha To Relocate To Delhi
Case Title: Gautam Navalakha vs National Investigation Agency
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 579
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday relaxed the bail condition imposed on Elgar Parishad - Bhima Koregaon case accused Gautam Navlakha and permitted him to relocate to Delhi. Navlakha had petitioned a division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Shyam Chandak contending that he is unable to afford living in Mumbai and should be allowed to return to his permanent residence in Delhi. One of the conditions of his bail mandated that he shall not leave Mumbai without prior permission of the special court.
Case Title: Dr Vrushali Vasant Yadav vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 580
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (December 16) held that a woman working on temporary basis on daily wages is entitled to the benefits of maternity leave and she cannot be denied the same on the ground that she is given 'technical break' of 1 or 2 days after completing 120 days in a year.
Case Title: Maria Marta Vaz vs Jacinta Pereira
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 581
The Bombay High Court has held that the Inventory Court has no jurisdiction under Section 446 of the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceedings Act, 2012, to re-open concluded inventory proceedings for the purpose of creating a fresh allotment of shares. The Court clarified that Section 446 permits only limited amendments by consent of parties or correction of clerical or arithmetical errors arising from accidental slips or omissions, and does not empower the Inventory Court to undertake a substantive re-adjudication of rights or re-partition the estate once the inventory proceedings have attained finality.
Case Title: Ramdev Singh Jadeja vs Union Territory of Daman and Diu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 582
Observing that crimes by law enforcers undermine the integrity of the entire justice system, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday denied bail to five policemen from Daman and Diu Union Territory, who were booked for illegally detaining young boys from Surat, physically abusing them and demanding Rs 25 lakhs as 'ransom' to release them and releasing them subsequently after receiving Rs 5 lakhs money from the family of the victims.
Bombay High Court Bars Sale of Cough Syrup Under 'CEFDON' Mark, Citing Similarity With 'CEDON'
Case Title: Blue Cross Laboratories Private Limited vs RB Remedies Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 583
The Bombay High Court has permanently barred an Ahmedabad-based drug company from selling a cough syrup under the name “CEFDON”, ruling that it is too similar to an existing and well-known brand, “CEDON.”
Case Title: Amit Chaurasia vs ICICI Bank Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 584
The Bombay High Court has upheld the validity of an Online Dispute Resolution (“ODR”) clause as well as the arbitrator appointment process conducted through an ODR platform. The Petitioner i.e. Amit Chaurasia (“Chaurasia”) filed an application for substitution of arbitrator. The Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan reviewed the contract between the parties and observed that the parties had agreed to ODR at the hands of an ODR agency.
Bombay High Court Quashes Tax Notices Issued Against Mumbai Company After SVLDRS Settlement
Case Title: Astute Valuers and Consultanta Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 585
The Bombay High Court has held that once a dispute is settled under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and a Discharge Certificate is issued, tax authorities cannot reopen the matter.
Case Title: Vijaya Yashwant Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 586
The Bombay High Court has held that the cut-off date prescribed under a welfare scheme meant for COVID-19 frontline workers cannot be applied in a rigid or technical manner so as to defeat the very object of the scheme. The Court observed that such schemes must receive a liberal and beneficial interpretation, particularly where a frontline worker contracted COVID-19 during the currency of the scheme while discharging official duties, but succumbed to the illness shortly thereafter. The Court held that in such circumstances, the cut-off date cannot be regarded as sacrosanct.
Case Title: M/s Colorcon Asia pvt. Ltd. vs The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 587
The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) has held that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by an Indian subsidiary to its foreign shareholder must be restricted to the treaty rate of 10% under Article 11 of the India-UK India Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)
Case Title: Illiyas Mangroo Shaikh vs Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 588
The Bombay High Court has held that a consumer has no enforceable statutory right to claim interest on the mandatory pre-deposit made under Section 127(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, when the assessment of unauthorised use of electricity is set aside in appeal. The Court observed that the deposit under Section 127(2) is a condition precedent for maintaining the statutory appeal and is not a payment towards tariff or consumption charges; in the absence of any express statutory provision creating a reciprocal obligation on the licensee to pay interest, the Court held that interest cannot be awarded on equitable considerations.
Case Title: Santosh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 589
The Bombay High Court has held that the policy adopted by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) for priority allotment of industrial plots to specified “thrust sector” industries constitutes a legitimate and reasonable classification permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court observed that Article 14 does not mandate that all public land must invariably be allotted by public advertisement or auction, and that a rational, transparent policy creating a sub-class for preferential treatment to advance industrial development objectives does not amount to arbitrariness or discrimination.
Case Title: Manikrao Kokate vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 590
In a setback for senior Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) (Ajit Pawar Faction) leader Manikrao Kokate, the Bombay High Court on Friday refused to stay his conviction in the 1995 cheating case. However, the court suspended his sentence for the time being.
Bombay High Court Bars Chandigarh Firm From Using Bunge India's 'LOTUS' Mark For Edible Oils
Case Title: Bunge India Pvt. Ltd. vs Lotus Refinery Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 591
The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained Chandigarh-based Lotus Refinery Pvt. Ltd. and its associate entities from using the mark “LOTUS” or any deceptively similar mark for edible oils. The court held that that the adoption of an identical mark for identical goods amounted to trademark infringement and passing off of Bunge India Pvt. Ltd.'s long-standing registered trademark.
Case Title: Laguna Resort Pvt Ltd vs Concept Hospitality Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 592
The Bombay High Court has held that time spent in earlier arbitral proceedings can be excluded while computing limitation, even if only part of an arbitral award is set aside and fresh proceedings arise from a different agreement.
Case Title: Indian Express and Commercial Ventures and Projects Pvt Ltd vs Fundamental Hospitality Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 593
The Bombay High Court has refused interim relief to a Mumbai Chinese cuisine restaurant, House of Mandarin, in a trademark infringement and passing off suit over the use of the mark “HOM.” By an order dated December 19, 2025, Justice Sharmila Deshmukh held that no prima facie case was made out. The court said House of Mandarin failed to show that the acronym “HOM” had acquired independent goodwill or public recognition capable of causing consumer confusion.
Case Title: Commissioner of Central GST vs Dish TV India Limited (Formerly known as Videocon D2H Ltd.)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 594
The Bombay High Court has upheld the Mumbai Tribunal's decision allowing Dish TV to retain CENVAT Credit on imported smart cards, which were used for testing and pairing with Set Top Boxes. A Division Bench comprising, Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten Venegavkar dismissed the appeal filed by the Service Tax Department against order by the Mumbai, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that after verifying accounting records held in favour of Dish TV.
Case Title: Thermax Limited vs Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 595
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award that mandated engineering giant Thermax Limited to pay ₹173 crore in favor of Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (RCF). The award primarily directed payments towards the additional costs RCF incurred for power due to failure of gas turbine generators. Considering a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Bench comprising of Justice Riyaz Chagla, determined that the findings of the arbitral tribunal were “perverse, patently illegal and based on no evidence” as it did not take the operational failure of Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.'s (RCF) into consideration.
Case Title: TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs Amritlal Shah
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 596
The Bombay High Court has held that res judicata does not apply where the issue in earlier proceedings was neither framed nor directly adjudicated and that the court exercising jurisdiction under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can modify an award by reducing the rate of interest where bad part of an award is severable from the good one.
Case Title: Mumbai Metro One Private Limited vs Hindustan Construction Company
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 597
The Bombay High Court recently rejected the Mumbai Metro One Private Limited's (MMOPL) request to have its dispute with Hindustan Construction Company (HCC) resolved by way of arbitration. The Court deciding that the arbitration clause in the original contract no longer applies to new issues emerging from the settlement, ruled that once a "full and final" settlement agreement is executed, it supersedes the original contract.
Case Title: Ayyappa Swami vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 598
A person feeding stray dogs in crucial spots of a housing society like the entry/exit points, places where school bus stops etc. which are not 'designated spots' if stopped from feeding by other society members, cannot then file a complaint under section 126 (wrongful restraint) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), held the Bombay High Court last week.
Case Title: Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. vs Dharma Production Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 599
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday declined to grant ad‑interim relief to Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. in a copyright infringement suit concerning the use of the song “Saat Samundar Paar” in the upcoming Hindi film 'Tu Meri Main Tera Main Tera Tu Meri'. The court has refused to injunct the use of the song in the upcoming Dharma Products movie slated for a Christmas Release.
Case Title: Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. vs Dharma Production Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 600
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday declined to grant ad‑interim relief to Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. in a copyright infringement suit concerning the use of the song “Saat Samundar Paar” in the upcoming Hindi film 'Tu Meri Main Tera Main Tera Tu Meri'. The court has refused to injunct the use of the song in the upcoming Dharma Products movie slated for a Christmas Release.
Case Title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Gayatridham Phase Co-operative Housing Society
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 601
The Bombay High Court held that an insurance company cannot avoid liability by pleading non-receipt of the insurance premium when the cheque towards the premium was received in time but was negligently handled by the insurer itself. The Court observed that where the insurer assumes risk after receiving the premium cheque and issues a renewed policy, it cannot subsequently repudiate the claim on the ground of dishonour of the cheque, especially when the dishonour was not due to insufficiency of funds and was attributable to operational lapses.
Palghar Mob Lynching: Bombay High Court Denies Bail To 4 Accused
Case Title: Rajesh Dhakal Rao vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 602
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant bail to four men booked in the infamous Palghar Sadhu Lynching case wherein two monks and their driver were killed by a mob which misunderstood them to be thieves. Single-judge Justice Dr Neela Gokhale denied bail to Rajesh Dhakal Rao, Sunil @ Satya Shantaram Dalvi, Sajanya Barkya Burkud and Vinod Ramu Rao.
Case Title: Shrabani Deodhar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 603
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (December 23) while quashing the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against Marathi TV Channel 'Star Pravah' for referring to a Scheduled Caste's name in one of its serial's episodes, held that mere use or reference to the name of a caste or tribe cannot constitute an offence under the stringent Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Case Title: Dr Trimbak V Dapkekar vs Padma Shree Dr Sharad M Hardikar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 604
The civilian awards such as Padma Shri, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Bharat Ratna cannot be used as a prefix or suffix to the names of the awardees, the Bombay High Court reiterated recently. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan while dealing with a petition involving a 2014 awardee Dr Sharad Hardikar, noted that he had used "Padma Shri" as a prefix to his name in the title of the case.
Case Title: Anil D Ambani v Indian Overseas Bank
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 605
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday stayed fraud classification proceedings initiated by Indian Overseas Bank, IDBI Bank and Bank of Baroda against Anil Ambani, founder and chairman of the Reliance Group, after prima facie finding serious defects in the forensic audit relied upon by the banks.
Case Title: Rangamma Soundappa Chetty vs Palaniswamy Obuli Chetty
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 606
"Siblings should learn to give up then to give into litigation" advised the Bombay High Court recently while suggesting a senior citizen brother and sister duo to amicably settle their dispute over their parents' property. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain while taking note of the use of 'abusive language' by the brother-sister in their pleadings in a defamation suit, emphasised the importance of 'Raksha Bandhan' and 'Bhaubeej' in our country.
Case Title: Shilpa Shetty Kundra vs Getoutlive.in
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 607
Observing that no person, especially a woman can be portrayed in a fashion which affects their right to privacy and right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Bombay High Court on Friday ordered the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to pull down all the photos and videos of Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty from various websites and social media platforms, most of which are created using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and are being used without her consent.
Case Title: Kumar Dashrath Kamble vs Bombay Hospital
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 608
The Bombay High Court has held that denial of permanency to a workman solely on the ground that he is HIV positive is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court observed that when a workman continues to discharge the same duties as his co-workers without any impediment, his HIV status cannot be used as a ground to deny him the benefit of permanency while extracting the same work for lower wages. The Court emphasised that such a denial amounts to hostile discrimination and is contrary to constitutional values of equality and dignity.
Case Title: Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Limited vs The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 609
The Bombay High Court has held that stamp duty cannot be levied on an agreement to lease by imputing an intention to create a lease in future, when the document does not effect a present demise of the property. The Court observed that an agreement to lease, which merely confers a licence to enter upon land for a limited purpose pending fulfilment of stipulated conditions, does not create any right, title or interest in the immovable property and therefore cannot be treated as a “lease” for the purposes of levy of stamp duty under Article 36 of Schedule I to the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.
Case Title: United Spirits Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner of State Tax-II & Appellate Authority, South Goa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 610
The Bombay High Court at Goa has dismissed a writ petition filed by United Spirits Ltd. challenging the levy of interest on delayed payment of VAT on sales of Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA), Rectified Spirit (RS) and High Bouquet Spirit (HBS) for the financial year 2019–20.
Case Title: Tukaram Janaba Patil vs The Collector, Kolhapur
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 611
The Bombay High Court has held that applications seeking redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be rejected on hyper-technical grounds such as non-filing of a certified copy. The Court observed that Section 28-A is a beneficial provision enacted to remove inequality in compensation among landholders and must be interpreted liberally to advance its object. It further emphasised that farmers who lose their sole source of livelihood due to compulsory acquisition must not be denied statutory benefits on procedural technicalities.
Case Title: Amritlal P. Shah vs The TJSB Sahakari Bank Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 612
The Bombay High Court has referred for consideration by a larger Bench the question of whether recovery proceedings initiated by State Co-operative Banks are governed by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act), and whether the jurisdiction of Co-operative Courts under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 stands excluded in view of Sections 17, 18 and 34 of the RDB Act.
Case Title: Nimish Chandulal Shah vs Central Depository Services (India) Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 613
The Bombay High Court recently set aside an arbitral decision that had rejected investors' claims against Central Depository Services (India) Limited (CDSL), on the grounds of alleged forum shopping, by declaring that involvement in regulatory proceedings does not bar independent arbitration remedies. Allowing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Justice Sandeep Marne on 23rd December, 2025 concluded that the arbitral panel had "egregiously erred" by abusing the forum shopping and election theory by neglecting to consider the investors' claims on its merits.
Bombay High Court Quashes ₹1.26 Crore Arbitral Award Over Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator
Case Title: Manmohan Bhimsen Goyal vs Madhuban Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 614
The Bombay High Court recently set aside a ₹1.26 crore arbitral award made in favor of Madhuban Motors Pvt. Ltd. on the grounds that the lender unilaterally appointed the sole arbitrator, violating Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Ruling that participation in arbitral proceedings cannot remedy an ineligible appointment, the Bench comprising of Justice Sandeep Marne held that the award was "patently illegal" and "against public policy".
Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion vs State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 615
On Tuesday late evening, the Bombay High Court held an "emergency" hearing at the residence of the Chief Justice after it was informed about the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) Commissioner issuing a communication to the staff of the city's subordinate courts directing them to report for "election duty" on December 30 for 2 hours in the evening.