Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 19 - May 25, 2025

2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 193 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 197Nominal Index:Ram Shankar Sinha vs Ritesh V. Patel, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 193Balasaheb Gurushantappa Arawat vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 194Kisanlal Bairudas Jain vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 195Arjun Amarjeet Rampal vs Income Tax Department, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 196The Board of Mumbai Port Authority vs Official Liquidator of GOL Offshore Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 197Judgments & Final Orders:[Rent Control Act] In Eviction Suits, Licensee Can't Lead Evidence Contrary To Leave & License Agreement Even If It Is Unwritten: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Ram Shankar Sinha vs Ritesh V PatelCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 193The Bombay High Court recently explained the scope of Section 24 (b) read with Section 43(4) Of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Single-judge Justice Madhav Jamdar held that the presumption under clause (b) of explanation to Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act is applicable only when an Application for eviction is filed relating to the premises given on licence for residence. In other proceedings, the said presumption may not apply. Therefore, notwithstanding the non-registration of an Agreement in writing of leave and licence in respect of the premises given for residential use, when an Application under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act is made, the said clause (b) will apply to such an Agreement and it will not be open for the licencee to lead any evidence contrary to the terms and conditions provided in the said Agreement.Police Cannot Compel Citizens Or Public Servants To Help Them: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR U/S 188 IPCCase Title: Balasaheb Gurushantappa Arawat vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 194The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently flagged the 'unfortunate mentality' of the Police Department in the State that everybody must give preference to the work directed by the police or must help the police. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh in its order said the police officers cannot make it compulsory for any citizen or public servant to help them and any refusal to help the police will not be considered as an offence in all situations.[Arbitration Act] S.37 Not An Efficacious Alternate Remedy After Rejection Of Plea U/S 34 Seeking Enhanced Compensation: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Kisanlal Bairudas Jain vs Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 195The Division Bench of Bombay High Court comprising Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain allowed writ petitions seeking enhanced solatium under National Highways Act, 1956 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Tarsem Singh and Ors. While doing so the Court rejected the argument of the Respondent that the petitions ought to be dismissed as the Petitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA).Bombay High Court Quashes NBW Issued Against Actor Arjun Rampal Over 2019 Tax Evasion CaseCase Title: Arjun Amarjeet Rampal vs Income Tax DepartmentCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 196The Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside a 'non-bailable warrant' issued by the Ballard Pier Magistrate Court in the city against Bollywood actor Arjun Rampal in a 2019 Income Tax evasion case. Vacation Court judge Justice Advait Sethna noted that the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Ballard Pier was 'cryptic' and passed 'without application of mind' as the non-bailable warrant was issued in a case pertaining to a 'bailable offence.'Statutory Port's Dues Deserve Priority In Distribution Over Other Claims, Including Those Of Secured Creditors: Bombay High CourtCase Title: The Board of Mumbai Port Authority vs Official Liquidator of GOL Offshore LimitedCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 197The Bombay High Court stated that the statutory port dues take precedence over all other claims, including those of secured creditors, by virtue of the paramount lien created under Section 64 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and such are to be treated as secured claims being entitled to be paid in priority, even before the secured creditors.Others Orders:Turkey-Based Celebi Subsidiary Moves Bombay High Court Against Termination Of Contract By Mumbai AirportIn a development to the ongoing legal spat between Turkey-based airport ground handling services major Celebi and Indian authorities, the former has moved the Bombay High Court challenging the termination of its contract with the Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) and also the revocation of its security clearance. Celebi Nas Airport Services India (a subsidiary of Celebi), which operates at the Mumbai airport has filed three petitions - two arbitration petitions and a writ petition, challenging the Centre's decision to revoke the security clearance and contract termination by the MIAL.

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 19 - May 25, 2025

Narsi Benwal

Tags