Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 09 - June 15, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 206 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 213]Anirudh Prataprai Nansi vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 206Rekha P Thapar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 207Santosh Savlaram Morajkar vs Sumitra Savlaram Moraskar, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 208M/s. Krishna Constructions vs Subhash Uttam Dalvi, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 209Ankur Narayan Panwar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 210Anil Dhanraj Jethani vs Firoz Nadiadwala, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 211TikTok Limited vs Registrar of Trade Marks, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 212Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical and Education Society vs Indira Madhukar Muraskar, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 213Judgments:Denying Full Reimbursement For Retd Govt Employee's Heart Surgery Violates His Human Rights: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Anirudh Prataprai Nansi vs Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 206Refusing full reimbursement of the medical expenses to a public servant, who underwent a critical 'heart transplant' surgery not only violates his fundamental rights but strikes at the very essence of the human rights, said the Bombay High Court while directing Centre to reimburse Rs. 22 Lakhs to a retired Excise and Customs Officer.Bombay High Court Orders BMC To Pay ₹50 Lakh Each To Families Of Victims Killed In 2015 Hotel City Kinara FireCase Title: Rekha P Thapar vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 207The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (June 10) while holding the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) responsible for the death of eight youngster, who died in a tragic fire that broke out in a eatery in Mumbai and therefore ordered the civic body to pay Rs 50 lakh to the families of each of the victims.Advocates Have Right To Plead On Behalf Of Parties In Senior Citizen Maintenance Tribunals : Bombay High CourtCase Title: Santosh Savlaram Morajkar vs Sumitra Savlaram MoraskarCitation:2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 208In a significant ruling, the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that whenever an advocate puts in an appearance for any of the parties before a Maintenance Tribunal, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, s/he will have the right to be heard and to plea before the said tribunal.Promoter Need Not Seek Consent For Additional Construction If Full Project Is Disclosed At Agreement Stage: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s. Krishna Constructions vs Subhash Uttam DalviCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 209The Bombay High Court stated that promoter need not seek consent for additional construction if full project disclosed at agreement stage. “Once the entire project is placed before the flat takers at the time of the agreement, then the promoter is not required to obtain prior consent of the flat takers as long as the builder puts up additional construction in accordance with the layout plan, building rules and Development Control Regulations” stated the bench.Preeti Rathi Acid Attack & Murder Case: Bombay High Court Rejects Convict's Plea For Transfer To 'Open Prison' Citing Discipline IssueCase Title: Ankur Narayan Panwar vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 210Every prisoner must follow the rules and regulations especially the ones pertaining to 'behaviour' and no prisoner can be allowed to bring prohibited articles in the jail, the Bombay High Court held recently while dismissing a plea filed by Ankur Panwar, the convict in the infamous Preeti Rathi Acid Attack case.Formal Service Of Writ Of Summons Not Required In Transferred Suit If Appearance Made At Interlocutory Stage: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Anil Dhanraj Jethani vs Firoz NadiadwalaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 211The Bombay High Court stated that formal service of writ of summons not required in transferred suit if appearance made at interlocutory stage. The Bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja stated that “since the rigours of the Commercial Courts Act and the amended CPC in relation to the service of summons do not apply to transferred Suits and considering that the captioned Suit was a regular Suit filed before the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act to which the Commercial Courts Act become applicable and that the Defendant No.1 had already entered an appearance at the interlocutory stage / filed Vakalatnama, there is no need for the Plaintiffs to thereafter serve a writ of summons as the object of serving writ of summons has been satisfied.”Bombay High Court Upholds Order Refusing To Declare 'TikTok' As Well Known Trademark Owing To Its Ban In IndiaCase Title: TikTok Limited vs Registrar of Trade MarksCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 212The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash and set aside an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks, which refused to recognise "Tik Tok" as a well known Mark under the Trade Marks Act, noting that the social media application is banned in India.Voluntarily Abandoning Service Is Not Retrenchment: Bombay HCCase Title: Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical and Education Society vs Indira...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 09 - June 15, 2025

Narsi Benwal

Tags