Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 28 - August 03, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 307 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 319]Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 307Amit Rama Zende vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 308Laxman Motiram Barai vs Hafiza Sheikh, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 309Javed Abdul Rahim Attar vs The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 310Farah Deeba vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 311Noberto Paulo Sebastiao Fernandes vs Pankaj Vithal Tan Volvoikar, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 312Harkisandas Tulsidas Pabari vs Rajendra Anandrao Acharya, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 313PVG vs VIG, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 314NMM vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 315State of Maharashtra v Sanjay, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 316Shankar Govindrao Lang vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 317Salim Baig vs Sayyad Nawid, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 318 Krishnagopal B. Nangpal vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range – 3, Pune, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 319Judgments/Final OrdersMerely Attending PFI Seminars & Physical Training Does Not Amount To Terrorist Act Under UAPA: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 307Merely attending seminars and participating in physical training like karate etc conducted by the Popular Front of India (PFI), will not attract provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) which penalise terrorist act, held the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently held while granting bail to three men booked for being active members of PFI. A division bench of Justices Nitin Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar More noted that an FIR was lodged on September 21, 2022, by the Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) against Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel, Abdul Hadi Abdul Rauf Momin and Shaikh Irfan Shaikh Salim Alias Irfan Milli, based on a secret information that on November 21, 2021 and in July 2022, some seminars and physical and arms trainings were organised for Muslim youths.Live-In Agreement With Man To Give Birth For Consideration Akin To Surrogacy, No Free Consent: Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash Rape CaseCase Title: Amit Rama Zende vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 308An alleged consent given in an agreement to 'live' with a man for a year and give birth to his child for some consideration, is not a free consent as it is a form of surrogacy, which is banned in India, held the Bombay High Court while refusing to quash rape FIR against a man. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh rejected the argument of the applicant - Amit Rama Zende, who claimed that he had entered into an agreement with the victim in a question, who had joined as a house help at his place.'Mere Imposition Of Costs Cannot Justify Condonation Of Inordinate Delay Without Sufficient Cause': Bombay High CourtCase Title: Laxman Motiram Barai vs Hafiza SheikhCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 309The Bombay High Court has held that in the absence of a reasonable and plausible explanation, inordinate delay in filing a restoration application cannot be condoned merely by imposing costs, and doing so would amount to disregarding accrued rights of the opposite party. Single-judge Justice Vrushali Joshi was hearing a civil revision application filed by the original defendant challenging the order of the District Judge, which had condoned a delay of 2325 days and allowed restoration of a civil appeal filed by the plaintiffs. 'Violates Constitutional Right To Property': Bombay HC Directs Inquiry Into Issuance Of Unilateral Redevelopment Notices U/S 79A Of MHADA ActCase Title: Javed Abdul Rahim Attar vs The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development AuthorityCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 310The Bombay High Court has held that it is the duty of a constitutional court to intervene and inquire into instances where state power is alleged to have been abused for extraneous considerations. It directed the constitution of a high-level committee to examine the issuance of 935 notices under Section 79-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, by the Executive Engineer(s) of the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, a statutory unit under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority.Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Woman Who Reacted With 'Laughing Emoji' To Messages Praising Operation SindoorCase Title: Farah Deeba vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 311Sending a 'laughing emoji' to the celebrations of 'Operation Sindoor' in a WhatsApp group, putting a video status of Indian flag burning and that of Prime Minister sitting on a rocket, would attract offences of endangering sovereignty, integrity and unity of India and also promoting enmity between two groups, the Bombay High Court held on July 29.[S.438 BNSS] Sessions Court Cannot Entertain An Issue Outside Scope Of Original Proceedings Under Revisional Jurisdiction: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Noberto...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 28 - August 03, 2025

Narsi Benwal

Tags