Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 20 - January 26, 2025

2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 22 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 35Nominal Index:The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement vs. The Branch Manager, The Goa State Co-op Bank Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 22Health Care, Medical & General Stores Versus Amulya Investment,Through Proprietor Mr. Sameer G. Narvekar, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 23Hushad Neville Bacha vs Eric Girgol Vegas, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 24Rakesh Brijlal Jain vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 25Shubhamkaroti Charitable Trust And Anr. vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 26Shravani Suryavanshi vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 27RD vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 28Navneet Singh Gogia & anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 29Seawoods Estates Ltd. vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 30Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association vs Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 31Sabyasachi Nishank vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 32Sukhshanti Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs. Nishant M. Mahimtura & ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 33An Advocate vs Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 34Balya @ Rahul Sahebrao Lokhande vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 35Judgments/Final Orders:S.42 PLMA Excludes Applicability Of Section 5 Limitation Act, Delay In Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned Beyond 120 Days: Bombay High CourtCase title: The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement vs. The Branch Manager, The Goa State Co-op Bank Ltd. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 22The Bombay High Court has held that a delay in filing an appeal under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) cannot be condoned by the High Court beyond 120 days as stipulated in the provision.A division bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan stated that Section 42 PMLA excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which permits the court to condone delay if the applicant shows sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the stipulated period.Serving Signed Copy Of Award To Employee Of Party Does Not Constitute Valid Service U/S 31(5) Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Health Care, Medical & General Stores Versus Amulya Investment,Through Proprietor Mr. Sameer G. NarvekarCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 23The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil has held that service of a signed copy of an award on an employee of a party to an arbitration agreement is not a valid service under section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act.Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Man For Driving Without Helmet, Orders Him To Perform Community Service At HospitalCase Title: Hushad Neville Bacha vs Eric Girgol Vegas Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 24While quashing a First Information Report (FIR) against a 22-year-old man for driving a two-wheeler without a helmet and licence in 2017 (when he was 17-years-old), the Bombay High Court asked him to perform 'community service' at a hospital for four Sundays. The court further directed him to deposit his licence with the Mumbai Police for nearly three months and not to drive any vehicle in this period.Bombay High Court's 'Strong Message' To ED: Act As Per Law, Don't Harass Citizens; Imposes 1 Lakh CostCase Title: Rakesh Brijlal Jain vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 25In a significant order, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday while imposing an exemplary costs of Rs 1 lakh on the Enforcement Directorate (ED) observed that it is high time that the central agencies like the ED should conduct themselves within the parameters of law and stop taking the law in the own hands and harass citizens.Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav said a 'strong message' needs to be sent to the law enforcement agencies to ensure that the citizens are not harassed.Bombay HC Disposes PIL Seeking Oral Exams For Students With Learning Disability, After State Submits That Its Policy Provides For WritersCase title: Shubhamkaroti Charitable Trust And Anr. vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 26The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (January 22) disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to permit students with dysgraphia, a learning disability, to give oral examinations for their board examinations.As the government policy permitted writers for such students, a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre said that no further orders need to be passed in the petition.Sports Fraternity Suffers Due To Apathy From Maha Govt: Bombay High Court On Entry Of Women Swimmers' Team In National GamesCase Title: Shravani Suryavanshi vs Union of India Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 27The Bombay High Court recently expressed displeasure over the manner in which the Sports fraternity in Maharashtra suffers due to the 'apathy' of the State government, in shortlisting the State's Diving Team (women) for participating in the National...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 20 - January 26, 2025

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags