Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 27 – February 02, 2025

2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 36 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 43Nominal Index:Sri Sathe Infracon Private Limited v. M/s Rudranee Infrastructure Ltd. & another, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 36Nikhil Ranjwan vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 37Asif Shaikh vs. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 38Sachin Prakashrao Andure vs. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 39Wonderchef Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. vs Shree Swaminarayanan Pty Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 40Court's on its own motion vs. State of Maharashtra Department of School Education, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 41Amit Dholakia vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 42Avinash Benewal vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 43Judgments/Final Orders:Court Cannot Assume Jurisdiction To Appoint Arbitrator Unless Request For Reference Of Dispute Is Received By Respondent: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Sri Sathe Infracon Private Limited v. M/s Rudranee Infrastructure Ltd. & another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 36The Bombay High Court bench of Justice R. M. Joshi has held that compliance with Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory and that the court cannot assume jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11 unless a request for a reference of dispute is received by the respondent.An Individual Can't Be Subjected To Preventive Detention Just Because They Participated In Political Rally Which Turned Violent: Bombay HCCase Title: Nikhil Ranjwan vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 37Just because an individual participated in a political rally and the same turned violent later will not be a ground to initiate preventive detention process against them, said the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court while ordering the release of a man booked for participating in a rally demanding reservations to the Maratha Community.A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit Joshi noted that the petitioner before it was booked in a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on October 31, 2023 for participating in a political rally demanding Maratha Reservation and subsequently, the rally turned violent.[Muslim Man Forced To Chant Jai Shree Ram] Transferred FIRs To Another Police Station: Maha Govt Tells Bombay HCCase title: Asif Shaikh vs. StateCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 38The Bombay High Court on Wednesday accepted the statement of the Maharashtra government that it has transferred First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against a group of students, who were booked for allegedly assaulting a Muslim man and forcing him to chant "Jai Shree Ram."Govind Pansare Murder Case: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Six AccusedCase title: Sachin Prakashrao Andure vs. StateCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 39The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (January 29) granted bail to six men booked for the murder of communist party of India (CPI) leader Govind Pansare, who was allegedly shot down in August 2013.While Commercial Speech Falls Within Free Speech, Contract Prohibit Adverse Remarks: Bombay HC Imposes 90-Day Injunction On Wonderchef's DistributorCase Title: Wonderchef Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. vs Shree Swaminarayanan Pty Ltd. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 40Observing that commercial speech is a part of 'free speech' guaranteed by the Constitution of India, the Bombay High Court imposed a 90-day injunction against an Australia-based distributor of Wonderchef Home Appliances, owned by Celebrity Chef Sanjeev Kapoor, from making any comments or communications which could harm the reputation of the company, due to a contractual clause preventing them from doing so.'Open For State To Decide': Bombay High Court Disposes Suo Motu PIL On State Government's Proposed Cluster School PolicyCase title: Court's on its own motion vs. State of Maharashtra Department of School Education Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 41The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (January 29) disposed of a suo motu PIL concerning the State Government's proposed 'cluster school policy'.A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre noted Advocate General Birendra Saraf's stand that the State government has not taken any policy decision on its proposal. Charging Stations For E-Vehicles In Housing Societies Will Help Reduce Air Pollution: Bombay High Court Asks State To Finalise Legal FrameworkCase Title: Amit Dholakia vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 42Observing that charging stations for electric vehicles within society premises will help reduce the menace of air pollution, the Bombay High Court recently ordered the Maharashtra government to finalise its policy with regard to installation of charging points/stations with the housing societies, at the earliest.A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna while dealing with a petition filed by a businessman living in Mumbai's plush Pedder Road area, noted that despite multiple communications and representations made by him, his society was not permitting him to install a charging station in his society...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 27 – February 02, 2025

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags