Bombay High Court Annual Digest 2025: Part I [Citations 1 - 200]

Will Not Monitor Trial In Govind Pansare Murder Case: Says Bombay High Court, Orders Daily Hearing In The MatterCase Title: Smita Pansare vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 (LiveLaw) Bom 1The Bombay High Court on Thursday (January 2) said it will not continue to monitor the trial in the murder case of communist party of India (CPI) leader Govind Pansare, who was allegedly shot down by right-wing extremists in August 2013. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata while disposing of an application moved by prime accused Virendra Tawade, said the only aspect which is being investigated as on date is the whereabouts of the absconding accused in the case.Take Steps To Ensure Eligible Women Receive Benefits Under Altered Ladki Bahin Scheme: Bombay High Court To StateCase title: Prameya Welfare Foundation vs. State Of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 2While disposing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought the implementation 'Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana' for all eligible women in the State, the Bombay High Court has observed that the State must take the necessary steps to ensure that all the eligible women are entitled to the benefits of the altered scheme.Mumbai Police Shuts Forgery Case Against Actor Shweta Tiwari, Bombay High Court Permits Her To Withdraw Plea To Quash FIRCase Title: Shweta Tiwari vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 3The Mumbai Police last month informed the Bombay High Court that it has shut the 'forgery' case against TV actor Shweta Tiwari, lodged by her estranged husband Abhinav Kohli in 2021. A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Dr Neela Gokhale permitted Tiwari to withdraw her writ petition before the High Court, by virtue of which the silver screen actor had sought to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against her by Kohli.Following A Girl Only Once Will Not Amount To Stalking: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Amit Chavan vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 4In a significant order, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that merely following a girl or a victim once, will not amount to stalking as prescribed under the 354-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the provisions under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.2015 RBI Master Circular | Mere Delay In Submitting Export Documents Wouldn't Disqualify Credit Advanced As 'Export Credit': Bombay High CourtCase title: Jindal Cocoa LLP vs Reserve Bank of India Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 5Interpreting Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) 2015 Master Circular on Rupee/Foreign Currency Export Credit & Customer Service to Exporters, the Bombay High Court said that a delay in submitting export documents despite the export taking place within the given time, would not result in the credit ceasing to be an 'export credit'.2-Yrs Immunity Against No-Confidence Motion Is From Date Of Election Of First Sarpanch, Not From When New Sarpanch Fills Vacancy: Bombay HCCase title: Charushila Bira Shriram vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 6The Bombay High Court has observed that the immunity of two years given to a Sarpanch against No Confidence Motion under the 4th proviso of Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 is to be computed from the date of the first election and not from when a subsequent Sarpanch is elected for filling the vacancy. Justice Sharmila Deshmukh was of the view that the “date of election” in the provision indicates that the words are situation-specific and not person-specific.Bombay HC Imposes ₹1.5L Costs On MHADA, Municipal Corporation For Holding Possession Of Properties Beyond Requisition PeriodCase title: Dnyaneshwar Lingappa Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 7The Bombay High has directed the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and the Solapur Municipal Corporation to pay Rs. 50000 each to three landowners whose properties were requisitioned by the Collector under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, and remained in possession of MHADA after the expiry of the requisition period without formal notification of acquisition under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act).'Communal Frenzy' Led to Scuffle Between Hindu & Muslim Family: Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash Cross FIRs Against Both FamiliesCase Title: Vijay Sonkar vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 8The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash two cross First Information Reports (FIR) lodged by Hindu and Muslim families against each other respectively after the two families allegedly had a scuffle. In doing so a division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Rajesh Patil noted that the 'communal frenzy' between the two communities, which led to a scuffle and thus, both the families ended up lodging cross cases against each other.Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Rona Wilson & Sudhir Dhawale In...

Bombay High Court Annual Digest 2025: Part I [Citations 1 - 200]

Narsi Benwal

Tags