Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 15 - September 21, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 369 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 381]Asian Paints Ltd. vs Competition Commission of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 369Rajan Baburao Vichare vs Naresh Ganpat Mhaske, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 370Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 371Rahul Pittu Savalkar vs Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 372Molbio Diagnostics Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 373Krishna Shantaram Chamankar vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 374High Court of Judicature At Bombay On Its Own Motion vs Nilesh C Ojha, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 375Romell Housing LLP vs Sameer Salim Shaikh, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 376Classic Legends Pvt Ltd. vs Assessment Unit, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 377The Commissioner of Income Tax vs Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 378Bharat Shatrughana Bhosale vs Divisional Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 379Rupali Bapurao Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 380Ashish Chandrakant Chauhan vs Mohini Mukesh Chauhan, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 381Final Orders/Judgments'No Inherent Right Of Hearing': Bombay HC Dismisses Plea Challenging CCI's Order To Probe Asian Paints For Alleged Abuse Of DominanceCase Title: Asian Paints Ltd. vs Competition Commission of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 369The Bombay High Court has held that a party has no inherent right of oral or written hearing at the stage where the Competition Commission of India (CCI) forms a prima facie opinion under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. The Court clarified that the order at this stage is administrative in nature, and whether to afford a hearing lies within the discretion of the CCI. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale was hearing a writ petition filed by Asian Paints Limited challenging the CCI's orders, whereby the CCI directed the Director General to investigate allegations made by Grasim Industries Limited that Asian Paints had abused its dominant position in the decorative paints market.[Representation Of Peoples Act] 'Election Candidates Must Only Disclose Convictions Resulting In Imprisonment Of One Year Or More': Bombay HCCase Title: Rajan Baburao Vichare vs Naresh Ganpat MhaskeCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 370The Bombay High Court has held that election candidates are required to disclose only those convictions that have resulted in imprisonment of one year or more. The Court read down Entry 6 of Form 26 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, to bring it in line with Section 33A(1)(ii) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which mandates such disclosure. Single-judge Justice Riyaz Chagla was hearing applications filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 14 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the election petition filed against them. The petitioner had argued that the returned candidate failed to disclose his conviction in Form 26, thereby rendering his election liable to be set aside.Relief For Bajaj Allianz As Bombay High Court Quashes State Notice Demanding ₹374 Crore For Crop InsuranceCase Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 371The Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside notices issued by the Maharashtra government to Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Corporation (BAGIC) demanding it to pay Rs 374 crores to the farmers in Osmanabad for the loss of their soybean crops due to 'unseasonal rains' categorised as 'localised calamity' under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PM Yojna).'Workers Can't Be Denied Permanent Status Merely Due To Unavailability Of Sanctioned Posts': Bombay High CourtCase Title: Rahul Pittu Savalkar vs Additional Principal Chief Conservator of ForestCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 372The Bombay High Court has held that workmen who have completed the requisite period of continuous service cannot be denied permanent status merely on the ground that sanctioned posts are unavailable. The Court emphasised that such a denial would amount to continued exploitation of the workers, contrary to welfare legislation and the mandate of social justice.S. 149 Income Tax Act | Reassessment Beyond Limitation Period Is Valid Where 'Bogus' Royalty Payments Exceed ₹50 Lakh: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Molbio Diagnostics Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 373The Bombay High Court has stated that reassessment beyond 3 years is valid where bogus royalty expenses exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years, in the present case, where the alleged bogus royalty expenses exceeded 50 Lakhs. The bench opined that Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act is a jurisdictional fact which must be established prior to reopening of assessment on the ground that income has escaped assessment.Maharashtra Sadan Scam: Bombay High Court Quashes...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 15 - September 21, 2025

Narsi Benwal

Tags