Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 14 - July 20

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 281 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 298]Aarti Drugs Limited v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 281ARP vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 282M/s. Unique Integrated Transport & Management Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 283Victorinox India Pvt. Ltd. vs Gute Reise India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 284Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 285Sonu Nigam vs Sonu Nigam Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 286Ningbo Aux Imp and Exp Co. Ltd. v. Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 287Ajay Amarchand Chhabria & Anr. v. Amarchand Daulatram Chhabria (HUF), 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 288M/s. Patil Roadlines & Ors. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 289Saraswatibai Gangagoud Anantwar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 290Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak, Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, Math (Karveer) Kolhapur vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 291Anil Babura Baile vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 292Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire vs PRADA Group, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 293PAB vs ARB, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 294Abdulkadir Lokhandwala vs Central Adoption Resource Authority, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 295Parvati @ Swati vs Vyankat, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 296Pranav Constructions Limited Versus Priyadarshini Co-operative Housing Society Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 297Vedant vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 298Judgments/Final Orders:Courts Cannot Mandate Retrospective Correction Of Errors In Legislation: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Aarti Drugs Limited v. Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 281The Bombay High Court has held that courts cannot issue writs directing the legislature to correct alleged “clerical errors” in enacted laws or to give retrospective effect to legislative changes. It held that even if a change in the customs tariff is perceived as corrective or clarificatory, granting retrospective effect to such changes falls exclusively within the legislative domain.Marriages 'Sacrosanct' In Hindus But Misuse Of Domestic Violence Act A Menace, Courts Must Encourage Settlement: Bombay High CourtCase Title: ARP vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 282The Bombay High Court recently while quashing a section 498A IPC case against a family observed that marital discords have now-a-days become a menace in the society and that because of the two persons fighting over petty issues, the concept of marriage, which is 'sacrosanct' for Hindus is suffering a setback. A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Mahendra Nerlikar noted the 'trend' of women filing FIR against as many relatives of the husband as possible and said thus there is a need to look at matrimonial discord matters from a 'different' angle.Suit Cannot Be Dismissed On Grounds Of Res Judicata Without Giving Party An Opportunity To Respond: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s. Unique Integrated Transport & Management Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 283The Bombay High Court has ruled that the bar of res judicata under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) cannot be invoked for the first time in a final judgment without framing an issue or giving parties an opportunity to respond. It has set aside a single judge's judgment that dismissed a suit invoking res judicata at the decree stage without prior notice.Bombay HC Directs Amazon To Comply With Arbitral Tribunals' Interim Orders, Delist All Victorinox Products Being Sold By Ex-DealerCase Title: Victorinox India Pvt. Ltd. vs Gute Reise India Pvt. Ltd.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 284The Bombay High Court has directed Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. to immediately delist all Victorinox-branded products being sold by its former dealer, Gute Reise India Pvt. Ltd., in compliance with an arbitral tribunal's interim order. The Court held that online platforms must act swiftly to enforce tribunal directions. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing an urgent commercial arbitration petition filed by Victorinox India Pvt. Ltd., seeking enforcement of an interim order passed under Section 17 by an arbitral tribunal on July 9, 2025.Bombay High Court Clears Way For Passenger Jetty Near Gateway Of India; Rejects Colaba Residents' PleaCase Title: Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 285The Bombay High Court today dismissed the petitions filed by residents of Colaba, challenging the construction of a Jetty facility in South Mumbai, near Radio Club and adjacent to the iconic Taj Mahal Palace Hotel and near the Gateway of India. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne thus upheld the validity of the decision of the Maharashtra Government and the State's Maritime Board.Bombay High Court Protects Singer Sonu Nigam's Right To Privacy,...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 14 - July 20

Narsi Benwal

Tags