Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 22 - September 28, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 382 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 390]NHS vs ANS, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 382Surendra vs Agrofab Machineries Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 383Yashwant Anna Bhoir vs State of Maharastra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 384State Of Goa vs Unique Identification Authority of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 385Khyyum Khadir Patwari vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 386Hikal Limited vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 387VVB vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 388Shivranjan Towers Sahakari Griha Rachana v Bhujbal Constructions, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 389Vyom Dipesh Raichanna vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 390Judgments/Final Orders:Husband Entitled To Divorce Over Non-Disclosure That Wife Suffers From Incurable Disease: Bombay High CourtCase Title: NHS vs ANSCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 382The Bombay High Court, while dissolving a marriage, held that if a spouse suppresses a fact that she suffers from an incurable disease like "cerebral palsy" before marriage, that can be a ground for the other spouse to seek divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. A division bench of Justices Nitin Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar More decided the appeal filed by a husband, who challenged the judgment of a Family Court, which, by an order passed on August 17, 2023, dismissed his plea seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty.Employee Need Not Deposit Retrenchment Compensation As Pre-Condition To Challenge Termination: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Surendra vs Agrofab Machineries Pvt. Ltd.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 383The Bombay High Court has held that an employee cannot be compelled to deposit the amount of retrenchment compensation as a condition for challenging his retrenchment. The Court observed that retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a statutory right of the employee and is intended to provide subsistence during unemployment. Making its deposit a precondition for litigation may force employees to withdraw challenges due to financial hardship.Building Proposals Should Only Be Granted After Municipal Infrastructure Is Built, Deficient Amenities Affect Fundamental Rights: Bombay HCCase Title: Yashwant Anna Bhoir vs State of MaharastraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 384The Bombay High Court has expressed deep concern over the lack of civic infrastructure and systematic planning in the Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal area and directed the constitution of an Improvement Committee to provide recommendations for urban development. The Court held that improper planning and deficient civic amenities directly affect the fundamental rights of citizens to a clean and healthy environment, as guaranteed under the Constitution.Providing Identity, Birth Proof Of Person To Police Doesn't Amount To Disclosure Of Personal Information: Bombay High CourtCase Title: State Of Goa vs Unique Identification Authority of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 385The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that providing demographic information with regard to the proof of identity (POI), proof of birth (POB), and the proof of address (POA) of an individual to the police does not result in disclosing personal information. Single-judge Justice Valmiki Menezes was hearing an application filed by the State of Goa seeking a direction to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIADI) to disclose the demographic information pertaining to one Yaniv Benaim @ Atala, an Israeli national, who secured an Aadhar Card despite being a foreigner and that too without providing any valid documents.'Abusing Community Leader Not Insult To Religion': Bombay High Court Quashes FIR U/S 295A IPC For Insulting Maratha Leader Manoj JarangeCase Title: Khyyum Khadir Patwari vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 386A person may represent a religion in certain ways but s/he does not become a 'religion' himself, the Bombay High Court observed while holding that any abuse or use of disrespectful words for a socio political figure cannot be equated with insult to faith. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten Venegavkar, sitting at Aurangabad, quashed an FIR lodged against a man, booked for hurling abuses at Maratha leader and activist Manoj Jarange-Patil, who has been spearheading the protests for the reservation for the community.Pending Proceedings Under Omitted CGST Rules 89(4B) & 96(10) Lapse In Absence Of Savings Clause: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Hikal Limited vs Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 387The Bombay High Court has held that all pending proceedings under the omitted CGST Rules 89(4B) & 96(10) lapse in the absence of a savings clause. The bench agreed with the assessee/petitioners that the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act are not attracted and therefore the pending proceedings can claim no immunity or protection.Wife Cannot Be Disentitled From Claiming Right In Husband's Family Pension Merely On Allegations Of Adultery: Bombay High...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 22 - September 28, 2025

Narsi Benwal

Tags