2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 150 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 163Nominal Index:Brijesh Barot vs Registrar General, High Court, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 150Elite Housing LLP Versus The Spectrum CHS Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 151Al-Quraish Human Welfare Association & Ors vs. The State Of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 152High Court On Its Own Motion vs Vineeta Srinandan, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 153Arun Hastimal Firodia...
2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 150 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 163
Nominal Index:
Brijesh Barot vs Registrar General, High Court, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 150
Elite Housing LLP Versus The Spectrum CHS Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 151
Al-Quraish Human Welfare Association & Ors vs. The State Of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 152
High Court On Its Own Motion vs Vineeta Srinandan, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 153
Arun Hastimal Firodia v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 154
Chetana Rajput v. Modern Education Society, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 155
Technova Imaging Systems Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 156
Sharmila Ghuge vs. University of Mumbai, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 157
Tata Capital Limited v. Vijay Devij Aiya, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 158
Tanveer Ahmed Patel vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 159
Cyril Ribeiro vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 160
Sheikh Ibrahim vs Sheikh Rehman, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 161
IMAX Corporation v. E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 162
Dr. V.N. Madhu vs. S.S. & L.S. Patkar-Varde College & ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 163
Judgments/Final Orders:
Case Title: Brijesh Barot vs Registrar General, High Court
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 150
The Bombay High Court recently took strong objection to an advocate accusing the judges of acting "hand in glove" with the respondent and therefore, recused from hearing the case. The judges also issued a show-cause notice for criminal contempt of court to the said advocate and further ordered the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) to conduct enquiry against the advocate.
Case Title: Elite Housing LLP Versus The Spectrum CHS Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 151
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that objections related to the terms of the redevelopment agreement raised by members of the society can be decided only by the appropriate forum having jurisdiction over such issues. These matters cannot be adjudicated under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case title: Al-Quraish Human Welfare Association & Ors vs. The State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 152
The Maharashtra Government informed the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (April 22) that it has constituted a committee headed by a former judge of the high court to lay down guidelines for the slaughter of animals which are 'not useful' for certain purposes provided under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act.
Bombay High Court Sentences Woman To One Week Prison For “Dog Mafia” Comment Against Judges
Case Title: High Court On Its Own Motion vs Vineeta Srinandan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 153
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday convicted a woman under charge of criminal contempt of court for calling the court "dog mafia" and making "objectionable" comments against the court and also the judges over their order in favour of dog feeders in a case pertaining to a dispute between a Navi Mumbai-based society and dog feeders.
Case Title: Arun Hastimal Firodia v. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 154
A single judge bench of Justice Y. G. Khobragade upheld the issuance of criminal process against the Chairman of Kinetic Engineering Ltd., for failing to implement a Labor Court judgment. The court rejected the argument that a Chairman cannot be held responsible for compliance with court orders. The court clarified that persons in positions of control and supervision over an industrial establishment's affairs are obligated to implement court judgments even when appeals are pending without a stay order.
Payment Of Gratuity Delayed Beyond One Month Of Retirement, Attracts 10% Interest: Bombay HC
Case Title: Chetana Rajput v. Modern Education Society
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 155
A division bench comprising of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe held that Nowrosjee Wadia College had to pay gratuity with 10% interest to a retired teacher, as their retirement benefits had been delayed without justification. The court held that educational institutions cannot withhold gratuity for more than one month, even if there are disputes over the pension calculation.
Case Title: Technova Imaging Systems Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 156
The Bombay High Court stated that amalgamated company can adjust written down of assets of amalgamating companies and claim depreciation without central government's approval.
Case title: Sharmila Ghuge vs. University of Mumbai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 157
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (April 24) disposed of a PIL that sought enforcement of mandatory attendance requirements among law students enrolled in various colleges affiliated with the Mumbai University. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik did so after noting that the PIL petitioner did not provide any details of the colleges where students are allowed to take examinations without complying with the mandatory attendance requirement.
Unilateral Option To Terminate Arbitration Agreement Does Not Render It Illegal: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Tata Capital Limited v. Vijay Devij Aiya
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 158
The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan while disposing an application for appointment of arbitrator has observed that an arbitration clause which gives option to only one party to opt out of the arbitration agreement is not invalid per se. Such arbitration agreement can be saved by eliminating the unilateral option or by making such right bilateral.
Only Triple Talaq Is Prohibited, Not Talaq-e-Ahsan: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Tanveer Ahmed Patel vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 159
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 23) held that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 only prohibits the instantaneous and irrevocable "Triple Talaq" also known as "Talaq-e-biddat" but does not prohibit the traditional mode of divorce under Islam known as "Talaq-e-Ahsan."
Case title: Cyril Ribeiro vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 160
The Bombay High Court has observed that a Government allottee who does not hold a 'legal occupation or possession' of a property under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 cannot be considered as a 'deemed tenant' under Section 27 of the Act.
Case Title: Sheikh Ibrahim vs Sheikh Rehman
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 161
A Muslim father, who transfers his property to his son as a gift known as 'Hiba' under the Islamic Law, can continue to reside in the said property along with his son and need not leave the said residence as the law does not mandate delivery of 'actual and physical' possession of the property other it only provides for 'constructive possession', the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held, recently.
Case Title: IMAX Corporation v. E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 162
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and M.M. Sathaye has observed that when a common arbitration petition seeking recognition, enforcement and execution of a foreign award is declined against all the respondents, the mere fact that some respondents had successfully filed chamber summons seeking deletion of their names would not render the appeal filed under Section 50(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as not maintainable.
Case Title: Dr. V.N. Madhu vs. S.S. & L.S. Patkar-Varde College & ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 163
A division bench consisting of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe dismissed a writ petition that prayed for the counting of earlier service in pension calculations. The court held that any reappointment made after terminating the previous service cannot be linked to the earlier service period. The court explained that if previous service was terminated, the reappointment made after proper selection process is considered afresh for pension calculations.
Other Orders/Observations:
Observing that no citizen must suffer at the airports, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday constituted a three-member expert committee under chairmanship of former Andhra Pradesh High Court judge - Justice (retd) Goda Raghuram to look into the issue of non-availability of wheelchairs and other facilities for senior citizens, physically disabled citizens and even for children and women.
The Director General of Police (DGP) Maharashtra has submitted an affidavit before the Bombay High Court that the police authorities have undertaken initiatives and campaigns regarding illegal loudspeakers and noise pollution, in relation to a contempt petition alleging 2940 illegal loudspeakers in the State.
Businessman Raj Kundra Moves Bombay High Court For Quashing Of LOC In Pornographic Film Racket Case
Celebrity and Businessman Raj Kundra has approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the "Look Out Circular" issued against him for his alleged role in the pornographic film racket case.
While permitting withdrawal of a PIL seeking funds to compensate wrongly incarcerated persons, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 23) orally remarked that in the absence of statutory backing, it cannot issue guidelines to the union or state government under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday ordered the Maharashtra Government to put up the State's Prison Manual and also Police online so as to help prisoners and their relatives learn more about their rights, while in jail.
The Bombay High Court on April 25 directed the Mumbai Police to not arrest comedian Kunal Kamra in the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him, following his satirical video and "gaddar" comment purportedly made against Maharashtra's Deputy CM Eknath Shinde.
The Bombay High Court rapped the Maharashtra Police for failing to transfer the investigation in the Badlapur 'Fake' Encounter case to an SIT formed by the High Court on April 7. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale remarked that the act of the State Police of not transferring the case despite clear orders amounts to 'brazen violation' of its orders and also constitutes criminal contempt of court.
While hearing a PIL seeking action against illegal parking near a railway station, the Bombay High Court asked the petitioners whether they would visit the station between 10 am and 5 pm to "create awareness" on the issue. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik remarked that 'public spirited persons' should provide a remedy to the problem, instead of just making complaints and pointing fingers at authorities.