Bombay High Court Annual Digest 2025: Part III [Citations 403 - 615]

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. 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.Pre-Show Cause Notice Consultation Not An Empty Formality, Mandatory When Demand Is Over ₹50 Lakhs: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 404The 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.Prior IBC Proceedings Don't Bar Criminal Prosecution Of Directors Under S. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Ortho Relief Hospital and Research vs M/s. Anand DistilleriesCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 405The 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.Any Person In Control Of Company Is Liable To Face Penal Measures If Account Is Declared Fraud: Bombay High Court In Ambani's CaseCase Title: Anil Ambani vs State Bank of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 406While 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).Non-Use Of Mandatory Portal Can't Be Ground To Reject Appointment When Portal Was Non-Functional: Bombay HCCase Title: Vidyapeeth Society, Kolhapur vs The State Of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 407A 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 CourtCase Title: Kishore Jairam Chakole vs The Western Coalfields Ltd.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 408In 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.Mere Use Of Abusive Or Defamatory Language Not Sufficient To Constitute Offence U/S 294 IPC: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Amit Ashok Jagdale vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 409The 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.Bombay High Court Denies Zanmai Labs' Plea Against Arbitral Tribunal's Order To Provide Bank Securities In WazirX Crypto Theft CaseCase Title: Zanmai Labs Private Limited vs Bitcipher Labs LLPCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 410The Bombay High Court has dismissed a challenge by Zanmai Labs, the company that co-operates the WazirX cryptocurrency platform, against...

Bombay High Court Annual Digest 2025: Part III [Citations 403 - 615]

Narsi Benwal

Tags