Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 31 – April 06, 2025

2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 122 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 134Nominal Index:Dabur India Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 122Accelerate Productx Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 123Yash Charitable Trust vs. State Of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 124Lakhani's Blue Waves Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs The Chairman, CIDCO, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 125Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University Law School vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 126Ambit Urbanspace Versus Poddar Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 127Shahbaz Mumtaz Khan vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 128ST vs Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 129Anil Ambani vs Deputy Director of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 130Rohan Vishwas Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 131Santanu Sengupta & Ors. Versus Macrotech Developers Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 132Samarth Constructions vs Pushpa Mate, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 133Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund Versus Neelkanth Realty Private Ltd. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 134Judgments/Final Orders:Dabur Undertakes Before Bombay High Court To Discontinue Anti-Inflammatory, Anti-Bacterial Labels On ToothpasteCase title: Dabur India Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 122Dabur India Ltd submitted an affidavit before the Bombay High Court that it would no longer use 'anti-inflammatory', 'anti-bacterial' and 'analgesic' on its toothpastes, in view of an order by the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Government of Maharashtra.A division bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna accepted Dabur's statement that it would remove the said labels. It stated that with effect from June 2025, the product ought not to be manufactured or sold with the said labels either on the box or on the products.'Concept Of 24x7 Convenience Shops Popular Worldwide': Bombay High Court Permits Retail Store In Pune To Operate For 24 HrsCase Title: Accelerate Productx Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 123While observing that the concept of '24x7' shops have become a popular one worldwide, the Bombay High Court permitted a convenience retail store in Pune to operate 24x7. The bench noted that State while recognising such advantages and to achieve progress commensurate with the global standards, has not imposed any kind of restrictions on the timings of such stores.State Rules Under Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act Have Been Framed: State Govt Tells Bombay HCCase title: Yash Charitable Trust vs. State Of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 124The Bombay High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the enactment of State Rules under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. During the hearing, the State counsel submitted that the Maharashtra State Rights Of Persons With Disability Rules, 2024, were framed by the State government by exercising power under Section 101 of the 2016 Act. No Fundamental Right To Be Cremated Or Buried At A Specific Site, Authorities Will Decide Where To Cremate Or Bury A Citizen: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Lakhani's Blue Waves Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs The Chairman, CIDCO Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 125In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently held that the citizens do not have a fundamental right to be cremated or buried at a specific place.A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata ordered the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) to remove a crematorium constructed nearby residential societies, shops, a school and a playground on a few plots in sector 9 of Navi Mumbai's Ulwe area.Bar Council Of India Has Power To Inspect Law Schools: Bombay High Court Rejects Challenge To Rules Of Legal EducationCase title: Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University Law School vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 126In a challenge to an inspection notice issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI), the Bombay High Court has held that the notice is valid and that the Rules of Legal Education 2008 framed by the BCI under which it can inspect law colleges is not ultra vires.A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik observed that the Rules under which the BCI is empowered to inspect law colleges does not violate Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and noted that the impugned notice was neither arbitrary nor illegal.Tenants Occupying Premises Which Fall Under Development Agreement Cannot Be Evicted U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Ambit Urbanspace Versus Poddar Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 127The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that Eviction of tenants governed by the Rent Control Act cannot be sought under...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 31 – April 06, 2025

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags