Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up June 23 - June 29

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 231 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 243]Shireen Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy vs Jamsheed Mehli Poncha, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 231Sudhir Brijendra Jain vs Rajendra Dhedya Gavit, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 232ABC vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 233Chetan Ahire vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 234Union of India Through The General Manager Central Railway vs PLR HC RBR JV, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 235Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 236SKPS vs PSS, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 237Nandkumar Infrastructure LLP vs The Superintendent Engineer, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 238Marico Limited vs Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 239M/s. Carona Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 240Manoj Lalwani vs Reserve Bank of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 241Neha Shroff vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 242The Superintending Engineer vs Pundlik Kondiba Pachpinde, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 243Judgments/Final Orders:Bombay High Court Clears Confusion Over Ratan Tata's Shares Not Mentioned In His WillCase Title: Shireen Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy vs Jamsheed Mehli PonchaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 231Clearing the air over who will get the 'listed and unlisted' shares owned by late industrialist Ratan Tata, which were not otherwise distributed in his Will, the Bombay High Court last week clarified that such shares will be distributed 'equally' between the Ratan Tata Endowment Foundation and the Ratan Tata Endowment Trust. Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale disposed of the probate proceedings initiated for deciding the legality of Tata's original Will made on February 23, 2022 and further altered or modified through four separate Codicils (Will alterations or additions) with the last one being December 22, 2023.Candidate Disclosing Information About Second Wife In Election Affidavit Not By Itself Ground To Unseat Him: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Sudhir Brijendra Jain vs Rajendra Dhedya GavitCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 232If a candidate's religion or culture permits polygamy, then he can add an additional column in the Form 26 Affidavit and disclose details of the second spouse and the same act would not disqualify him from contesting elections nor would he be unseated later by virtue of an election petition, held the Bombay High Court on Monday (June 23). Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne upheld the election of Shiv Sena candidate Rajendra Gavit from Palghar Constituency to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly, elections of which were held last year.Bombay High Court Permits Woman To Abort 25-Week Pregnancy After Her 'Estranged' Partner Agrees To Look After HerCase Title: ABC vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 233In a unique turn of events, the partner of an unmarried woman, who moved the Bombay High Court seeking to abort her 25 weeks foetus, fearing 'social stigma', has agreed to look after her till she undergoes the procedure under Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act to abort her foetus. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale noted that the 31-year-old woman was 'left in lurch' by 'her own circumstances.'Bombay High Court Rejects Plea Challenging 2024 Maharashtra Assembly Elections Over Alleged Bogus VotingCase Title: Chetan Ahire vs Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 234The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (June 25) dismissed a petition challenging elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly which were concluded in November last year, over alleged bogus voting. The petition filed by one Chetan Ahire alleged that over 75 lakh votes were polled after the official closing time of polling (6 PM). He also claimed there were several discrepancies in almost 95 constituencies, wherein the number of votes polled and the number of votes counted, did not match.Contractor Cannot Be Denied Payment For Extra Work Approved By Railways Through Their Actions: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Union of India Through The General Manager Central Railway vs PLR HC RBR JVCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 235The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that a contractor cannot be denied payment for extra work that, while beyond the original scope of the agreement, was clearly consented to by the other party through its conduct. When such work is accepted, measured, and not objected to contemporaneously, the benefiting party cannot later claim it was beyond the contract's scope. To allow this would amount to unjust enrichment.Benefit Of Cash Compensatory Scheme Cannot Be Denied On Castor Oil Exports Based On Subsequent Test Change: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 236The Bombay High Court stated that benefit of cash compensatory scheme benefit cannot be denied on castor oil exports based on subsequent test change. The Division Bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain has observed that contracts executed prior to the cutoff day would...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up June 23 - June 29

Narsi Benwal

Tags