Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 03 – March 09, 2025

2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 81 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 88Nominal Index:Madhabi Puri Buch vs. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 81Avinash Dhavji Naik & Anr vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 82Devendra Patil vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 83Sachin Hindurao Waze vs. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 84Kartik Radia vs. M/s. BDO India LLP and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 85Adani Cementation Limited vs. Union Of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 86Karan Johar vs India Pride Advisory Private Ltd , 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 87Devendra Darda vs. State of Goa & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 88Judgments/Final Orders:Bombay High Court Stays Special Court Order Directing Registration Of FIR Against Ex-SEBI Chief Madhabi Puri Buch, Other BSE OfficialsCase title: Madhabi Puri Buch vs. State Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 81The Bombay High Court has stayed the order of a special court, which directed the registration of an FIR against Ex-SEBI Chief Madhabi Puri Buch and whole-time members and also the top officials of the Bombay Stock Exchange. Single-judge Justice Shivkumar Dige after hearing the arguments of solicitor general Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocates Amit Desai and Sudeep Pasbola, and also the complainant - Sapan Shrivastava, stayed the special court's order saying that the same was "mechanical."Bombay High Court Quashes Acquisition Of Agricultural Lands For Navi Mumbai Airport ProjectCase title: Avinash Dhavji Naik & Anr vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 82The Bombay High Court has set aside an award of land acquisition of agricultural lands for the purpose of Navi Mumbai Airport Project at Vahal Village in Panvel District, noting that there were procedural lapses in the proceedings.A division bench of Justice M.S.Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the State authorities wrongly dispensed with the requirement of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by taking recourse to the 'urgency provision' under Section 17. The Court stated that the State did not issue any notification or direction to invoke Section 17.Telling Someone That Respect For Dr.Ambedkar Has Reduced Because Of Followers Like Him Isn't Offence: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Devendra Patil vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 83The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) quashed an FIR registered against a man over a phone call in which he told another person that respect for Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar has reduced because of followers like the latter.The Court opined that asking a follower of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar why s/he is 'using' the leader's name when they cannot follow his footsteps, and saying that because of such followers, his (Ambedkar's) name is defamed, and that because of such followers, the respect for him has 'reduced' does not constitute an offence.Bombay High Court Refuses To Order Release Of Dismissed Cop Sachin Waze In Antilia Bomb Scare CaseCase title: Sachin Hindurao Waze vs. Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 84The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by former Mumbai Police police officer Sachin Waze, who sought his release in the Antilia Bomb Scare case alleging that his arrest was illegal. Notably, Waze was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on March 13, 2021 for allegedly placing an explosive-laden vehicle near industrialist Mukesh Ambanis's residence Antilia in Mumbai. He was charged under Sections 16 and 18 of UAPA for the commission of terrorist activities.LLP Can Be Bound By Arbitration Clause Despite Not Being Signatory To LLP Agreement: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Kartik Radia vs. M/s. BDO India LLP and Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 85The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the mere fact that an LLP is not a signatory to an LLP Agreement does not, by itself, preclude it from being a party to arbitration proceedings initiated between Partners under the arbitration clause of such an agreement.The Court observed that an LLP is not a “third party” to its LLP Agreement but an entity with rights and obligations vis-à-vis its partners as per the statutory scheme of the LLP Act. The Arbitral Tribunal, and not the Section 11 Court, has the jurisdiction to determine whether a party is a necessary or proper party to the arbitration.Will Ease Road Congestion & Reduce Carbon Emission: Bombay High Court Permits Adani Cement To Cut Mangroves For Jetty Construction In RaigadCase title: Adani Cementation Limited vs. Union Of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 86The Bombay High Court has permitted Adani Cementation Limited to cut 158 mangroves for the purpose of construction of a jetty alongwith a conveyor corridor and approach road on the Amba River in Raigad District.The High Court noted that Adani Cement has obtained necessary statutory permissions for cutting mangroves. The Court was of the view that the construction of jetty would achieve the object of easing congestion in roads and help in...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 03 – March 09, 2025

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags