Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 21 - July 27, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 299 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 306] State of Maharashtra vs Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil Ansari, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 299KSIQ vs IAQ, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 300Seema Sureshchandra Mehata vs Marvel Realtors & Developers Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 301Bindu Narang vs Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 302Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. vs Azhar Ahmed Qaisar Ahmed, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 303Gazi Salauddin Rehmatulla Hoole alias Pardeshi Baba Trust vs New Shree Swami Samartha Borivade, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 304Sadashiv Parbati Rupnawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 305Celebi NAS Airport Services India Pvt Ltd vs Mumbai International Airport Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 306Judgments/Final OrderMaharashtra ATS Tortured Accused, Officers Were Frustrated: Bombay High Court While Acquitting 12 Men From 7/11 Mumbai Train Blasts CaseCase Titile: State of Maharashtra vs Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil AnsariCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 299The Bombay High Court while acquitting all the 12 convicts in the infamous 7/11 Mumbai train blast case, observed that the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) probing the case tortured the accused in the most 'inhuman and barbaric' manner as the officers were 'frustrated' at the relevant time and thus the 'confessional statements' of the accused obtained by the cops, were inadmissible. A special division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak after going through the evidence on record, noted that the accused were in 'prolonged' police custody till 76 days and that they retracted from their confessions recorded during their remand, just the moment when they were produced before the court for judicial custody.Welfare & Comfort Of Child Prevails When Pitted Against Personal Law: Bombay High Court Lets Muslim Mother Retain Custody Of 9-Yr-OldCase Title: KSIQ vs IAQCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 300The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday (July 21) held that even when a personal law is pitted against the welfare and comfort of a child, the latter would always have an upper hand. Single-judge Justice Shailesh Brahme noted that the Muslim Personal Law allows the custody of a minor above the age of 7-years to the father and the child in the instant case was 9-years-old. However, after personally interacting with the child, the judge noted that he has a greater bonding with his mother and thus granted custody in her favour.Absence Of Certificate Under Rule 4 Of MahaRERA Rules Does Not Bar Maintainability Of Execution Application Before Civil Court: Bombay HCCase Title: Seema Sureshchandra Mehata vs Marvel Realtors & Developers LimitedCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 301The Bombay High Court has held that the certificate contemplated under Rule 4 of the MahaRERA Rules, 2017, is not mandatory in an execution application, and the object of this Rule is to ensure that the directions for handing over possession are executed by the civil court within whose jurisdiction the project is situated.Lok Adalat Cannot Deny Opportunity Of Cross Examination To Party Without Reasons, Even Though Summary Procedures Are Followed: Bombay HCCase Title: Bindu Narang vs Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 302The Bombay High Court has held that the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) must adhere to the principles of natural justice as enshrined in Section 22-D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, even though summary procedure is followed. The Court quashed the PLA's order in a dispute involving a telecom bill, on the ground that the petitioner was denied the right to cross-examine the respondent's witness without any reasoning.Change In Nature Of Industrial Activity Does Not Result In Unauthorised Use Of Electricity Unless Revenue Loss Is Shown: Bombay HCCase Title: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. vs Azhar Ahmed Qaisar AhmedCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 303The Bombay High Court has held that merely changing the purpose of electricity usage from one industrial activity to another does not amount to unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, unless it causes revenue loss to the distribution company. Justice Vrushali Joshi of the Nagpur Bench dismissed a writ petition filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) challenging the Appellate Authority's order that had set aside a demand bill issued to consumer Azhar Ahmed Qaisar Ahmed. Mob Fury, Footfall Of People On Land Claimed As 'Dargah' Can't Prove Structure Is Legal: Bombay High Court Refuses To Recall Demolition OrderCase Title: Gazi Salauddin Rehmatulla Hoole alias Pardeshi Baba Trust vs New Shree Swami Samartha BorivadeCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 304Mere "mob fury" or "footfall of people" on a particular piece of land based on an assertion that it is a Dargah cannot prove that it is a legal structure, said the Bombay High Court...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 21 - July 27, 2025

Narsi Benwal

Tags