Bombay High Court Monthly Digest - May 2025

2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 170 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 201Nominal Index:Harshad Bhoite vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 170Maheshwari Shanmugam Pillay vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 171Sumitra Khane vs Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 172Kapil Satish Phalke & Anr. V/s. The Sub Divisional Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 173Kedar Bhusari vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 174Sanjay Girish Kumar Singh vs Karan Johar alias Rahul Johar, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 175Amol Nikam vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 176Satyaswarup Meshram vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 177Maksud Sheikh vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 178Vasantrao Shamrao Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 179M/s. Aakansha Construction Company v. The State Of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 180Jupicos Entertainment Private Limited Versus Probability Sports (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 181Rizvi Education Society vs The Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 182Rameshwar Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 183Girish Dattatray Mahajan vs Anil Thatte, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 184Reshu Singh vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 185Pandit Vithal Landage vs Vishnu Govind Pawar, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 186Vitthal Thaku Jagdale vs Nitin Suresh Kadam, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 187Arjan Motiram Khiani vs Metharam Rijhumal Khiani, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 188AAS vs SAS, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 189Ameykumar s/o Nitinchandra Patil vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 190IP vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 191Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. vs Maha Active Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 192Ram Shankar Sinha vs Ritesh V. Patel, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 193Balasaheb Gurushantappa Arawat vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 194Kisanlal Bairudas Jain vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 195Arjun Amarjeet Rampal vs Income Tax Department, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 196The Board of Mumbai Port Authority vs Official Liquidator of GOL Offshore Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 197SSK vs ASK, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 198Celebi Nas Airport Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs Mumbai International Airport, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 199KSS vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 200SGT vs NST, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 201Judgments and Final Orders:Need For Organ Transplant Is A Facet Of Right To Life: Bombay HC Orders Separate Registration List For Patients Potentially Needing TransplantCase Title: Harshad Bhoite vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 170The Bombay High Court while observing that the human need for organ transplant is a facet of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, ordered the Zonal Transplant Coordination Centre at Pune and the Maharashtra government to consider whether a separate registration facility could be provided to the category of patients, who may not be on dialysis or any other procedure but in future may imminently need a an organ transplant. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna ordered the authorities to file their responses to the petition filed by one Harshad Bhoite, a Pune resident, who petitioned the bench against the decision of the Zonal Transplant Coordination Centre at Pune, which refused to register him for organ transplant.If An Employee Is Exonerated In Disciplinary Proceedings, Interest Ought To Be Provided On Delayed Payment Of Retirement Benefits: Bombay HCCase Title: Maheshwari Shanmugam Pillay vs Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 171A Bombay High Court division bench consisting of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe allowed a writ petition that was filed by a widow asking for interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits to her late husband. The court ruled that when an employee is acquitted or exonerated in disciplinary proceedings, the retirement benefits ought to be paid along with interest from the date of retirement. Further, the court rejected the argument that there was no liability to pay interest. The court held that even if the proceedings are abated, interest ought to be paid.State Can't Trample Upon Rights Of Citizens In Rural Areas Merely Because They Lack Literacy Or Means To Approach Court: Bombay HCCase Title: Sumitra Khane vs Deputy Collector, Special Land AcquisitionCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 172The Bombay High Court has said that in a civilised society there is no place for discrimination in the application of law and a citizen cannot be deprived of his or her rights just because s/he did not approach the courts or the authorities in time. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan directed the Maharashtra government to pay the appropriate amount to some families in Kolhapur district, whose lands were acquired way back in September 1990 for the Dudhganga Irrigation Project.Power Of Remand Can't Be Exercised In Routine Manner, Only When Authority Has Not...

Bombay High Court Monthly Digest - May 2025

Narsi Benwal

Tags