Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 30 - July 06

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 244 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 258]Zilla Parishad vs Pradeep Bhaurao Pokale, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 244Farukh Shah vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 245Ravindra s/o Laxman Narete vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 246Rupali P Shah vs Adani Wilmar Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 247Microfibers Pvt. Ltd. vs Yes Bank Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 248Dnyaneshwar S/o Vishnu Surywanshi vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 249M/s. Vivienda Luxury Homes LLP vs M/s. Gregory & Nicholas, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 250Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 251Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 252Saravana Prasad vs Endemol India Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 253Jan Mukti Morcha vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 254Vast Media Network Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 255Mayur Raju Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 256Bajaj Auto Limited vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 257Sonal Vaibhav Sawant vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 258Judgments/Final Orders:Payment Of Gratuity Act Applies To Zilla Parishad Employees: Bombay HCCase Title: Zilla Parishad vs Pradeep Bhaurao PokaleCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 244A single judge bench of Justice Mukulika Jawalkar held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, applies to Zilla parishad employees. However, the court explained that Section 4(6) of the Act allows the withholding or forfeiture of gratuity if an employee faces criminal proceedings that involve moral turpitude.Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against AIMIM Leader Accused Of Illegally Constructing Public Square In Tipu Sultan's NameCase Title: Farukh Shah vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 245The Bombay High Court refused to quash an FIR registered against All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader and former MLA Farukh Shah accused of illegally constructing a public square in the name of Tipu Sultan in Dhule by allegedly utilizing public funds. In doing so the court observed that the probe was ongoing to find out as to who had erected the construction and whether permission was taken for the same adding underscoring that public square cannot be named by an MLA without following procedure laid down in law. It also noted that on one hand Shah defended the act of naming the square and on the other hand he was also claiming innocence which cannot go together.Merely Saying 'I Love You' Without Any Sexual Intent Is Not Sexual Harassment: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Ravindra s/o Laxman Narete vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 246Merely expressing 'I Love You' does not by itself amount to an offence of sexual harassment if not accompanied with words or acts reflecting 'sexual intent' the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held on June 30. Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke noted that the accused in the instant case had only said 'I Love You' to the minor girl, while she was on her way home from tuition classes and even insisted her to disclose her name, once.Bombay HC Rejects Copyright Infringement Suit Over Old Bollywood Songs, Says Assignment Of Music Rights Not Limited To Physical MediumCase Title: Rupali P Shah vs Adani Wilmar Ltd.Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 247The Bombay High Court has dismissed a copyright infringement suit filed by the daughter of late Bollywood producer O.P. Ralhan, holding that the rights to exploit songs from his films were validly assigned in perpetuity and not restricted to any particular medium, such as physical records. Justice Manish Pitale, deciding the suit filed by Rupali P. Shah, held that the assignment agreements executed by Ralhan in favour of the predecessor of defendant No.2 (Adani Wilmar Ltd.) granted perpetual and wide-ranging rights that included the right to exploit musical works “by any and every means whatsoever.” The Court rejected the plaintiff's claim that the agreements only permitted exploitation through physical media such as gramophone records.'Bank Cannot Delay Or Refuse To Open Account Over Demand For Aadhar Card': Bombay High Court Orders ₹50K CompensationCase Title: Microfibers Pvt. Ltd. vs Yes Bank Ltd.Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 248The Bombay High Court has held that a bank could not have insisted on Aadhaar as a mandatory requirement for opening a bank account after the Supreme Court's verdict in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018), and awarded ₹50,000 in compensation to a company whose account was delayed due to the bank persisting on its demand of Aadhar Card. The division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain was hearing a writ petition filed by Microfibers Pvt. Ltd., which had approached the Court in 2018 after Yes Bank Ltd. declined to open a bank account without an Aadhaar card. The petitioner contended that the requirement was unlawful and in violation of interim orders of the Supreme...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 30 - July 06

Narsi Benwal

Tags