Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 17 – February 23, 2025

2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 66 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 71Nominal Index:Swanubhuti Jain vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 66Sagar Dnyaneshwar Shinde vs. Secretary Maharashtra State Commission And Ors , 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 67Mirza Himayat Inayat Baig vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 68Vijay Chand Dubey vs State of Maharashtra and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 69The Board of Control for Cricket in India v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 70Play Ventures NV vs State of Maharashtra,2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 71Judgments/Final Orders:Consider Enabling Citizens To Rely On Documents Of Mother's Caste For Adopting Her Caste: Bombay High Court Tells Maha GovernmentCase Title: Swanubhuti Jain vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 66The Bombay High Court recently ordered the Maharashtra government to consider if a clause in 'exceptional circumstances' can be introduced in the 'Aaple Sarkar' the official portal, to enable a citizen, seeking a caste certificate based on the social status of his or her mother, to upload documents of their mother's social status. 'Aaple Sarkar' is the official website of the State government which provides various beneficial schemes for citizens and also enables them to lodge grievances.Members Of Maharashtra SC & ST Commission Appointed, Commission Functional: State Tells Bombay High CourtCase title: Sagar Dnyaneshwar Shinde vs. Secretary Maharashtra State Commission And Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 67The Bombay High Court has disposed of a PIL that sought the appointment of Chairman and Members to the Maharashtra State Commission of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, noting that the State government has appointed the members.A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Arif S. Doctor took note of the State's affidavit indicating that the Chairman and 2 members have been appointed to the Commission through a Government Resolution (GR) dated 16 September 2024. The affidavit said that the Commission is functioning now.'Not In Solitary Confinement': Bombay HC Dismisses German Bakery Blast Convict's Plea For Transfer To General Barrack In Nashik JailCase title: Mirza Himayat Inayat Baig vs. State of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 68The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (February 18) dismissed the petition filed by Mirza Himayat Baig, one of the prime convicts in the German Bakery Blast Case, seeking a directive to the jail authorities to shift him from the 'Anda Cell' a high security risk barrack to the general barrack of the Nashik Central Jail.A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale held that the petitioner was not undergoing any 'psychological trauma' as alleged by him in his letter petition to the court. It also junked his contention of being kept in 'solitary confinement.'14 Y/O Girl Had 'Sufficient Knowledge & Capacity' To Understand Her Actions: Bombay HC Grants Bail To POCSO AccusedCase Title: Vijay Chand Dubey vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 69The Bombay High Court on Monday granted bail to a 24-year-old man booked for raping a 14-year-old minor girl, noting that the victim had 'sufficient knowledge' and 'capacity' to know the 'full import of her actions' as she 'voluntarily' stayed with the accused for 4 days.Judge Milind Jadhav noted that multiple decisions of the Supreme Court and various other Courts have favoured the release of young offenders on bail pending trial so that the regressive influences of the jail environment can be avoided and keeping in mind the principle of best interest in the circumstances of a particular case.ITAT Cannot Overstep Its Authority By Deciding On Merits When It Had Already Concluded Appeal Was Not Maintainable: Bombay High CourtCase Title: The Board of Control for Cricket in India v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 70The Bombay High Court stated that ITAT cannot overstep its authority by deciding on merits when it has already concluded an appeal was not maintainable.The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “Once the ITAT concluded that the Appeal before it against the impugned communication/order was not “maintainable”, there was no question of the ITAT evaluating the impugned communication/order on its merits or making any observations or recording any findings regarding its validity or otherwise. Therefore, such observations and findings are without jurisdiction and should not have been made.”Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Foreign Company Booked For Unauthorisedly Broadcasting Bigg Boss, IPL 2023, Other Colors TV ShowsCase Title: Play Ventures NV vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 821 of 2025)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 71The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a Netherlands-based gaming company accused of unauthorisedly broadcasting various popular shows of Viacom 18 group such as 'Bigg Boss'...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 17 – February 23, 2025

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags