Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 24 – March 30, 2025

Nominal Index [2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 110 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 121]:National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED) Versus Roj Enterprises (P) Limited and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 110Narayan Pundalik Pathade v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Through Its Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 111NTPC BHEL Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shree Electricals & Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 112Kailash Chandak vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 113Suresh Raithatha Adult and Anr. VERSUS Bharti Navnit Raithatha, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 114V C vs N C, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 115Anudan Properties Private Ltd. vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 116Sawkash Autorickshaw Union vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 117Mohammad Yusuf vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 118Rahul Bacchav vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 119Shaikh Sadique Isaq Qureshi vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 120Fab Tech Works & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Savvology Games Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 121Judgments/Final Orders:Court Must Assign Reasons For Accepting Or Rejecting Grounds Of Challenge U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED) Versus Roj Enterprises (P) Limited and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 110The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be dismissed merely by stating that the scope of interference is limited; the court must address each ground of challenge and provide reasoned findings.Retired Employee Entitled To Interest On Delayed Retirement Benefits After Exoneration In Departmental Inquiry: Bombay HCCase Title: Narayan Pundalik Pathade v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Through Its CommissionerCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 111 A Division Bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe ruled in favor of a retired Municipal Corporation employee, directing payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits. The court held that when retirement benefits are withheld due to pending inquiry and the employee is subsequently exonerated, interest becomes payable from the date following retirement. It clarified that the doctrine of restitution applies in such cases.Benefit Of S.14 Of Limitation Act Extends To Delayed Filing Of Petition U/S 34 Of A&C Act Due To Prosecution In Good Faith In Another Court: Bombay HCCase Title: NTPC BHEL Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shree Electricals & Engineers (India) Pvt. LtdCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 112The Bombay High Court bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna has held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) can be extended to the petitioner who committed delay in filing an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) due to the prevailing legal position at the time of filing, which was subsequently changed.Bombay HC Quashes FIR Against Retd Professor Who Sent Obscene Message To Female Colleague, Claiming To Be Suffering From 'Mental Illness'Case Title: Kailash Chandak vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 113The Bombay High Court last week quashed a stalking case against a retired professor, who sent an 'obscene and objectionable' message to a female colleague, after noting that the accused was suffering from 'mental imbalance.' A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shriram Modak noted that the complainant woman, too have given her consent to quash the First Information Report (FIR) that she lodged against him with the Malabar Hill Police station.Arbitrator's Decision To Postpone Issue Of Partnership Firm's Dissolution To Stage Of Final Hearing Not Perverse: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Suresh Raithatha Adult and Anr. VERSUS Bharti Navnit RaithathaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 114The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil has held that the decision of the Arbitrator to postpone the issue of determining the date of dissolution of the partnership firm to the stage of final hearing cannot be considered perverse for the purpose of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), as it requires evidence to be presented, which is necessary for such an issue to be decided.Spouse Threatening To Commit Suicide And Attempting It Is Cruelty, Grounds To Seek Divorce: Bombay High CourtCase Title: V C vs N C Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 115The Bombay High Court has held that a spouse threatening to commit suicide and even attempting the same, would amount to cruelty and it can be a ground for one to seek divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. Justice RM Joshi dismissed the second appeal filed by a woman, who challenged...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 24 – March 30, 2025

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags