Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 29 - October 05, 2025

Nominal Index [Citation 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 391 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 402]MABRB vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 391Malabar Gold & Diamond Limited vs Meta Platforms Inc, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 392Naresh Jagdishrai Goyal vs Bank of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 393Akshay Quenim vs Royce Savio Pereira, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 394State of Maharashtra vs Aakash Sandhi Bindu, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 395Gautam Dham Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Funds and Properties of Parsi Panchayat, Bombay, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 396Anil D Ambani vs State Bank of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 397Asha Bhosle vs Mayk Inc., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 398Vasantha Perampally Nayak vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 399Mangal Credit and Fincorp Limited Versus Ulka Chandrshekhar Nair, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 400Shree Construction Company vs Bagwe Housing Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 401Dodal Electro Instruments vs The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 402Judgments/Final Orders:POCSO FIR Can't Be Quashed Only Because Victim And Accused Have Married And A Child Is Born: Bombay High CourtCase Title: MABRB vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 391Just because a minor girl has fallen in love with an adult man and their families have got them married and she has given birth to a child does not mean that the offences under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act are not made out, the Bombay High Court held on Friday (September 26). A division bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh Deshpande refused to quash an FIR lodged against 29-year-old man and his parents, booked under the charges of the stringent POCSO Act and also the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.Bombay High Court Orders Pulling Down Of Social Media Posts Labelling Malabar Gold As "Sympathiser Of Pakistan"Case Title: Malabar Gold & Diamond Limited vs Meta Platforms IncCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 392The Bombay High Court on Monday (September 29) in an ad-interim order, directed various social media platforms to pull down the defamatory posts against jewellery brand Malabar Gold and Diamonds, which is being labelled as a 'Sympathiser of Pakistan' by netizens for engaging a Pakistani social media influencer to promote it's brand in London.Bombay High Court Quashes Bank Of India Order Classifying Naresh Goyal's Loan Account As 'Fraud'Case Title: Naresh Jagdishrai Goyal vs Bank of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 393The Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside a show cause notice issued to Jet Airway's founder Naresh Goyal, by which the Bank of India (BoI) classified his loan account as 'fraud.' A division bench of Justices Riyaz Chagla and Farhan Dubash noted that the Bank did not provide an opportunity to Goyal to represent against the July 1, 2025 show cause notice classifying his account as fraud.Trial Court Cannot Decide Application For Amendment Of Plaint Without Considering Application For Return Of Plaint: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Akshay Quenim vs Royce Savio PereiraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 394The Bombay High Court has held that when a defendant files an application for return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the Trial Court must first examine that application before considering any amendment sought by the plaintiff. The Court emphasised that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a Court by way of amendment if it inherently lacks jurisdiction at the time of filing of the plaint.Bombay High Court Objects To Trial Court Granting Bail To Rape Accused On Ground Of His Upcoming MarriageCase Title: State of Maharashtra vs Aakash Sandhi BinduCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 395The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 1) cancelled the bail granted to a man booked in a gang rape case by a trial court on the ground that his marriage was scheduled to take place and that there were no injuries on the victim's private parts. Single-judge Justice Dr Neela Gokhale noted that the Additional Sessions Judge at Dindoshi (Borivali Division) had on February 24, 2025 granted bail to one Aakash Bindu on the ground that his marriage was to take place in the first week of March 2025.Date Of Service Of Summons Is Starting Point For Limitation Period To File Written Statement: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Gautam Dham Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Funds and Properties of Parsi Panchayat, BombayCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 396The Bombay High Court has held that the limitation period for filing a written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 begins from the date of service of summons along with a copy of the plaint, and not from the date of filing of the Vakalatnama by the defendant. The Court emphasised that the responsibility to serve the plaint rests upon the plaintiff and that the defendant cannot be expected to apply to the court office to obtain a copy of the plaint merely because a Vakalatnama has been filed earlier.Bombay High Court Dismisses Anil Ambani's Plea Against...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 29 - October 05, 2025

Narsi Benwal

Tags