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

Nominal Index: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 97 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 109Rajesh Shantilal Adani & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. & Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 97V. Ravi Prakash vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 98Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 99Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 100J Fibre Corporation v. Maruti Harishchandra Amrute, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 101Raju Shetty vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 102Sheetal Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 103Deepak Vallabhdas Intwala v. Casby Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 104Yuzvendra Chahal & Anr vs. Nil, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 105Case Title: Manmohan Kapani Through Special Power of Attorney Chandani Sood Versus Kapani Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 106Suraj Mishra vs Chief Executive Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 107Vinod Kachave vs The Presiding Officer (ICC), 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 108Vimal Dagadu Kate & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 109Judgments/Final Orders:Bombay High Court Grants Relief To Gautam Adani In 2012 Cheating Case Worth ₹388 CroreCase title: Rajesh Shantilal Adani & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. & Connected MatterCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 97In a reprieve for industrialist Gautam Adani, the chairman of Adani Enterprises and its Managing Director Rajesh Adani, the Bombay High Court today quashed a sessions court order which refused to discharge them in a Rs 388 crore alleged market regulations violation case.Single-judge Justice Rajesh Ladhha quashed the November 2019 order passed by a sessions court in Mumbai, which held that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) has made out a case against Adanis in the said market regulations violation case.Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Alleging ₹16.6 Crore 'Fraudulent' Bank Guarantees In Twin Tunnel ProjectCase title: V. Ravi Prakash vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 98The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking investigation by CBI or SIT into alleged fraudulent bank guarantees accepted by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) from a private company, Megha Engineering Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL), for the construction of a Twin Tube Road Tunnel between Thane and Borivali worth around Rs.16,600.40 crore.A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre remarked that the petitioner's conduct was mala fide and that the petition suppressed material facts. Bombay HC Sets Aside ESIC Order For Denying Hearing And Relying On Undisclosed ReportsCase title: Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance CorporationCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 99 A single judge bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh set aside the Employees' State Insurance Corporation's (ESIC) rejection of Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal. The court found that ESIC violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without granting a hearing, despite disputed facts about when the company received the original order. The court also ruled that ESIC's order was flawed as it relied on an undisclosed committee report. Thus, the matter was remanded to the ESIC Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication.Setting Aside Of Arbitral Award Leaves It Open To Parties To Choose To Arbitrate Again: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 100The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Somsekhar Sundaresan has observed that once an arbitral award has been set aside by the court in the exercise of its powers under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the parties would be restored to the original position and a fresh arbitration in such circumstances would not amount to the proverbial “second bite at the cherry”.Failure To Follow Retrenchment Procedure, Employee Crossing Retirement Age, Bombay HC Directs Lumpsum CompensationCase Title: J Fibre Corporation v. Maruti Harishchandra AmruteCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 101A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne partially allowed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order. The court held that an employee who had already crossed retirement age could not be reinstated, but was entitled to lumpsum compensation for the period between illegal termination and retirement. The court observed that while the employer had valid business reasons for reducing staff, failure to follow proper retrenchment procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act rendered the termination illegal. Thus, the court awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,58,073 covering the period from termination until the employee's retirement date."Farmers Cannot Be Made...

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

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags