Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 11 - August 17, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 327 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 336]Shivshankar vs Sanjay, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 327Jayesh Bandu Limie vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 328Babu Abdul Ruf Sarkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 329Shashikant Vitthal Kothawade vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 330Ashwini Trading Co. vs Housing Bank Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 331Sarfaraz Sayyad vs State of Goa, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 332Siddharth Iswar Motghare vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 333Zulferkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 334The Commissioner of Sales Tax vs M/s. Associated Cement Company Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 335Kalpesh Rajendra Jain vs Pramod Gaurishankar Todi, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 336Final Orders/Judgments Insurance Claimant Can Restrict Claim Amount To Pay Lesser Court Fees U/S 166 Of Motor Vehicles Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Shivshankar vs SanjayCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 327The Bombay High Court has held that a claimant can restrict the claim amount while filing an appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to avail the benefit of lower court fees at the initial stage, without being compelled to pay court fees on the full amount claimed in the original proceedings. Single-judge Justice Shailesh Brahme was hearing an appeal filed challenging the award passed by the claims tribunal passed U/Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant had initially claimed Rs. 40 Lakhs as compensation for the accident, and was granted Rs. 5.5 Lakhs by the tribunal. Being aggrieved by the award and for the enhancement of compensation, he preferred an appeal, valuing the claim at Rs. 1,00,000/- for the purpose of Court fees.Candidate's Involvement In Gambling-Related Activities Is Moral Turpitude, Cannot Direct Consideration For Public Service: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Jayesh Bandu Limie vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 328A candidate's involvement in an activity associated with gambling certainly amounts to moral turpitude and writ courts cannot order an employer to consider such a person for public service, especially in judiciary, the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the petition filed by one Jayesh Limje, who challenged the decision of the administration of the City Civil Sessions Court, Mumbai which on June 9, struck off his name from the selection list and also cancelled his appointment to the post of 'Clerk-Typist.'Merely Possessing Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID Card Not Proof Of Being Indian Citizen : Bombay High CourtCase Title: Babu Abdul Ruf Sarkar vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 329In a significant order, the Bombay High Court while denying bail to an alleged Bangladeshi national, held that merely having documents such as Aadhar Card, PAN Card or a Voter ID Card, does not make someone a citizen of India and in fact the concerned person must place on record the verification of these documents. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar denied bail to the Petitioner, who was booked by the Thane Police, last year, on the ground that he was a Bangladeshi national and that he misled the Indian authorities and obtained Aadhar Card, PAN Card and also a Voter ID Card, income tax records, gas and electricity connections, fraudulently.Bombay High Court Slaps ₹50K Cost On Litigant Over Repeated Pleas Against Closure Of Right To Cross-ExamineCase Title: Shashikant Vitthal Kothawade vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 330The Bombay High Court has dismissed with costs a petition filed by an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act seeking to set aside a 'no cross' order passed by the trial court, after he failed to cross-examine the prosecution's prime witness despite being given repeated opportunities over a span of five years. Single-judge Justice Kishore Sant was hearing the criminal writ, filed challenging the trial court's refusal to recall PW-2, the de facto complainant, after the accused failed to cross-examine him on three separate occasions, despite the court setting aside two prior no-cross orders and granting the same relief.[RDB Act] Bombay High Court Upholds Transfer Of Recovery Suit From Commercial Court To DRT, Says S.31 Must Be Given Purposive InterpretationCase Title: Ashwini Trading Co. vs Housing Bank Ltd.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 331The Bombay High Court has held that Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) must be given a purposive interpretation to ensure that recovery proceedings by banks fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), even if the suit was not originally within its jurisdiction at the time of filing. The Court ruled that when a non-banking lender merges with a bank during the pendency of a recovery suit, the matter must be transferred to DRT, given Sections 17 and 18 of the RDB Act.Cops Must Discharge Power With...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 11 - August 17, 2025

Narsi Benwal

Tags