Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 25 - August 31, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 352 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 355]Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Vinod Anandrao Parate, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 352JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. vs Amarlal Parashramji Sharma, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 353Sateri Builders & Developers LLP vs Minister of State, Home (Rural) Housing School Education Co-operative Mining Department, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 354Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Raigad, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 355Judgments/Final Orders:'Non-Traceability Of Documents Without Supporting Affidavit Is Not A Ground To Allow Secondary Evidence': Bombay High CourtCase Title: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Vinod Anandrao ParateCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 352The Bombay High Court has held that mere assertions of non-availability or non-traceability of documents, without filing a supporting affidavit, cannot constitute sufficient grounds for permitting secondary evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The Court upheld the decision of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) refusing to allow Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to lead secondary evidence.'Delay In Filing Review Application Cannot Be Condoned Without Looking Into Its Maintainability': Bombay High CourtCase Title: JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. vs Amarlal Parashramji SharmaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 353The Bombay High Court has held that unless the main proceedings are maintainable in law, there is no question of condoning delay in filing them. The Court ruled that the Labour Court erred in condoning a delay of 333 days in filing a review application without first examining whether such a review was maintainable, as the Industrial Disputes Act does not confer any power of review upon the Labour Court.Bombay High Court Laments Repeated Delays In Execution Of Slum Rehabilitation Projects, Directs Expeditious Implementation Of SchemeCase Title: Sateri Builders & Developers LLP vs Minister of State, Home (Rural) Housing School Education Co-operative Mining DepartmentCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 354The Bombay High Court has expressed concern over repeated delays in the implementation of slum rehabilitation schemes and directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to ensure that projects are implemented expeditiously in accordance with the object of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The Court observed that any interference or obstruction in the statutory process defeats the very purpose of the scheme, which is meant to provide secure housing to slum dwellers.Income Tax | Interest On Fixed Deposits, TDS Refund Linked To Business Qualifies For S. 80IA Deduction: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, RaigadCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 355The Bombay High Court held that interest on fixed deposits, TDS refund linked to business qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides tax incentives for businesses operating in certain sectors such as infrastructure, power, and telecommunications. A bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla stated that the placement of fixed deposits was imperative for the purpose of carrying on the eligible business of the assessee. The placement of fixed deposits is not for parking surplus funds which are lying idle. This is also demonstrated by the fact that the assessee had used these fixed deposits for purchasing cranes for the eligible business. There is a direct nexus between the fixed deposits and the eligible business of the assessee.Other Developments:'Show Bonafide': Bombay High Court Orders Kannada Actor Dhruva Sarja To Deposit ₹3 Crores In His Plea To Quash Cheating FIRThe Bombay High Court on Monday ordered Kannada actor Dhruva Sarja alias Dhruva Kumar to show his bonafides and deposit Rs. 3 crore, an amount which he received from filmmaker Raghavendra Hegde, who has accused the actor of duping him of over Rs 9 crore. Sarja faces a First Information Report (FIR) at the behest of Hegde, who has alleged that the Kannada actor had approached him requesting for a collaboration to which the filmmaker agreed and initially paid Rs 3 crore to the actor. Further Hegde claimed to have taken loans from various entities at higher interests from 2020 till lodging of the FIR, taking the total amount to Rs 43 crores.Bombay High Court Restrains 'Sprouts News' From Publishing Allegedly Defamatory Articles Against Godrej Properties'The Bombay High Court has held that ex parte ad-interim relief can be granted in defamation suits where the impugned articles are prima facie false, reckless and malicious, and where issuing notice would defeat the very purpose of the relief sought. The Court found that continued publication of such material would cause serious and irreparable damage to the commercial reputation of the plaintiff.Elgar Parishad Case: Bombay High Court Grants 3 Days Interim Bail ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 25 - August 31, 2025

Narsi Benwal

Tags