Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 06 - January 12, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 5 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 18:Nominal Index:Jindal Cocoa LLP & ors. vs. Reserve Bank of India & ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 5Charushila Bira Shriram vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 6Dnyaneshwar Lingappa Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 7Vijay Sonkar and Others vs State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 8Rona Wilson vs. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 9 XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 10Sunil Modi vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 11Yushika Gedam vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 12Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Anusaya Sitaram Devrukhkar & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 13Sanket More vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 14Bharti Neeraj Chaourasiya vs. Indian Overseas Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 15Amit Vyas vs. Union Of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 16Shreegopal Barasia Versus M/s. Creative Homes & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 17 VC vs RC, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 18Judgments/Final Orders:Case title: Jindal Cocoa LLP & ors. vs. Reserve Bank of India & ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 52015 RBI Master Circular | Mere Delay In Submitting Export Documents Wouldn't Disqualify Credit Advanced As 'Export Credit': Bombay High CourtInterpreting 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 & Ors. 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 U. 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 & ors. 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 and Others vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. 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 Bhima-Koregaon Elgar Parishad CaseCase Title: Rona Wilson vs. State Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 9In a major relief for researcher Rona Wilson and activist Sudhir Dhawale, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (January 8) granted them bail in the Bhima-Koregaon Elgar Parishad case.A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata considered the fact that the duo have spent more than 6 years in jail as undertrials.Husband's Inability To Develop Sexual Relations With Wife Is Generally Not Known To Even Nearest Relatives: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRCase Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 10The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against two maternal uncles and aunts of a man at the behest of his wife, on the ground that they got him married to the complainant woman, despite knowing that he could not develop physical relations with any woman.A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Rajesh Patil said whether a husband suffers from such a medical condition or not, is usually known to himself and generally such information is not known even to the nearest relatives.No Right Conferred On Proposed MLCs Until Governor's Decision Under Article 166, Council Of Ministers Can...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 06 - January 12, 2025

Sanjana Dadmi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 06 - January 12, 2025

Sanjana Dadmi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers