2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 80 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 112Nominal Index:Priyanka Bannerji vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 80Madhabi Puri Buch vs. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 81Avinash Dhavji Naik & Anr vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 82Devendra Patil vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 83Sachin Hindurao Waze vs. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 84Kartik...
2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 80 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 112
Nominal Index:
Priyanka Bannerji vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 80
Madhabi Puri Buch vs. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 81
Avinash Dhavji Naik & Anr vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 82
Devendra Patil vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 83
Sachin Hindurao Waze vs. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 84
Kartik Radia vs. M/s. BDO India LLP and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 85
Adani Cementation Limited vs. Union Of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 86
Karan Johar vs India Pride Advisory Private Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 87
Devendra Darda vs. State of Goa & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 88
Ramesh Potdar vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 89
Rahim Khan Sandu Khan vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 90
Kailash Mehar Singh Kher vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 91
Ramadas KS vs. TISS & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 92
Pushpa W/O Virendra Ganediwala vs. High Court Of Judicature Of Bombay Through Registrar General, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 93
Sanjiv Mohan Gupta v. Sai Estate Consultants Chembur Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 94
Tukaram Parab vs State, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 95
Arjun Raju Khanapure vs. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 96
Rajesh Shantilal Adani & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. & Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 97
V. Ravi Prakash vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 98
Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 99
Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 100
J Fibre Corporation v. Maruti Harishchandra Amrute, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 101
Raju Shetty vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 102
Sheetal Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 103
Deepak Vallabhdas Intwala v. Casby Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 104
Yuzvendra Chahal & Anr vs. Nil, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 105
Case Title: Manmohan Kapani Through Special Power of Attorney Chandani Sood Versus Kapani Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 106
Suraj Mishra vs Chief Executive Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 107
Vinod Kachave vs The Presiding Officer (ICC), 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 108
Vimal Dagadu Kate & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 109
National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED) Versus Roj Enterprises (P) Limited and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 110
Narayan Pundalik Pathade v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Through Its Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 111
NTPC BHEL Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shree Electricals & Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 112
Kailash Chandak vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 113
Suresh Raithatha Adult and Anr. VERSUS Bharti Navnit Raithatha, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 114
V C vs N C, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 115
Anudan Properties Private Ltd. vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 116
Sawkash Autorickshaw Union vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 117
Mohammad Yusuf vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 118
Rahul Bacchav vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 119
Shaikh Sadique Isaq Qureshi vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 120
Fab Tech Works & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Savvology Games Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 121
Dabur India Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 122
Judgments/Final Orders:
Case Title: Priyanka Bannerji vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 80
A marriage duly certified under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 cannot be deemed illegal or void just because either of the spouses did not comply with section 5 of the Act, which mandates one of them to live in the district, where they register their marriage, for 30 days, the Bombay High Court held. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna said once a marriage certificate is issued by the Registrar of Marriages under the Special Marriage Act, it is conclusive evidence of the legality of the marriage until it is quashed by a court of law.
Case title: Madhabi Puri Buch vs. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 81
The Bombay High Court has stayed the order of a special court, which directed the registration of an FIR against Ex-SEBI Chief Madhabi Puri Buch and whole-time members and also the top officials of the Bombay Stock Exchange.
Single-judge Justice Shivkumar Dige after hearing the arguments of solicitor general Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocates Amit Desai and Sudeep Pasbola, and also the complainant - Sapan Shrivastava, stayed the special court's order saying that the same was "mechanical."
Bombay High Court Quashes Acquisition Of Agricultural Lands For Navi Mumbai Airport Project
Case title: Avinash Dhavji Naik & Anr vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 82
The Bombay High Court has set aside an award of land acquisition of agricultural lands for the purpose of Navi Mumbai Airport Project at Vahal Village in Panvel District, noting that there were procedural lapses in the proceedings.
A division bench of Justice M.S.Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the State authorities wrongly dispensed with the requirement of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by taking recourse to the 'urgency provision' under Section 17. The Court stated that the State did not issue any notification or direction to invoke Section 17.
Case Title: Devendra Patil vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 83
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) quashed an FIR registered against a man over a phone call in which he told another person that respect for Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar has reduced because of followers like the latter.
The Court opined that asking a follower of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar why s/he is 'using' the leader's name when they cannot follow his footsteps, and saying that because of such followers, his (Ambedkar's) name is defamed, and that because of such followers, the respect for him has 'reduced' does not constitute an offence.
Bombay High Court Refuses To Order Release Of Dismissed Cop Sachin Waze In Antilia Bomb Scare Case
Case title: Sachin Hindurao Waze vs. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 84
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by former Mumbai Police police officer Sachin Waze, who sought his release in the Antilia Bomb Scare case alleging that his arrest was illegal. Notably, Waze was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on March 13, 2021 for allegedly placing an explosive-laden vehicle near industrialist Mukesh Ambanis's residence Antilia in Mumbai. He was charged under Sections 16 and 18 of UAPA for the commission of terrorist activities.
Case Title: Kartik Radia vs. M/s. BDO India LLP and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 85
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the mere fact that an LLP is not a signatory to an LLP Agreement does not, by itself, preclude it from being a party to arbitration proceedings initiated between Partners under the arbitration clause of such an agreement.
The Court observed that an LLP is not a “third party” to its LLP Agreement but an entity with rights and obligations vis-à-vis its partners as per the statutory scheme of the LLP Act. The Arbitral Tribunal, and not the Section 11 Court, has the jurisdiction to determine whether a party is a necessary or proper party to the arbitration.
Case title: Adani Cementation Limited vs. Union Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 86
The Bombay High Court has permitted Adani Cementation Limited to cut 158 mangroves for the purpose of construction of a jetty alongwith a conveyor corridor and approach road on the Amba River in Raigad District.
The High Court noted that Adani Cement has obtained necessary statutory permissions for cutting mangroves. The Court was of the view that the construction of jetty would achieve the object of easing congestion in roads and help in reduction of carbon.
Case Title: Karan Johar vs India Pride Advisory Private Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 87
In a big win for film-maker and producer Karan Johar, the Bombay High Court on Friday refused to lift the stay on the release of a film "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar" which was imposed in June last year.
Single-judge Justice Riyaz Chagla said that the makers of the film 'unauthorisedly' by using Johar's name and personality attributes in the title of their film, prima facie, violated his personality rights, publicity rights and also his right to privacy.
Case title: Devendra Darda vs. State of Goa & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 88
The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court recently set aside a Magistrate's order issuing summons to the Managing Director of Lokmat Media Private Limited, Devendra Darda, under the Working Journalist and Other Newspaper Employee (Conditions of Service) Act 1955.
While noting that the impugned order ought to have been challenged in a Revision Application before the Sessions Court, Justice Valmiki Menezes remarked that it was a “glaring case” where the Magistrate issued summons without any jurisdiction.
Case Title: Ramesh Potdar vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 89
The Bombay High Court recently came to the aid of a group of people from Maharashtra's Kolhapur district and ordered the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to accept their demonetised notes worth Rs 20 lakhs, which were seized by the Income Tax in December 2016 and returned to them after the deadline to exchange the old notes.
A division bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Milind Sathaye noted that the IT Department had seized the notes on December 26, 2016 and the deadline for exchanging the old notes was December 31, 2016.
Bombay High Court Permits Man Convicted Of Electricity Theft To Travel For Haj Pilgrimage
Case Title: Rahim Khan Sandu Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 90
The Bombay High Court recently permitted a man convicted for 'electricity theft' to go on Haj Pilgrimage along with his family after noting that his appeal challenging his conviction will not be taken up in the near future.
Case Title: Kailash Mehar Singh Kher vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 91
Observing that 'intolerance and dissent' from the orthodoxy have been a 'bane' of the Indian society for centuries, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday quashed the criminal case initiated against Bollywood singer Kailash Kher, who was accused of hurting the religious sentiments of the Hindu community in his popular song 'Babam Bam' - a track on Lord Shiva.
A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Shyam Chandak noted from the complaint filed by one Narinder Makkar before a court in Ludhiana, wherein he alleged that in the song sung by Kher in 2007, it can be seen that several girls and boys wearing clumsy clothes are dancing and even kissing each other, which has hurt the sentiments of the Hindu Community because the song was about Lord Shiva.
Case title: Ramadas KS vs. TISS & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 92
The Bombay High Court has upheld the suspension of a Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) PhD student, Ramadas KS, who was debarred from the institute for 2 years for participating in a protest against the BJP government and implementation of National Education Policy (NEP) under the banner of PSF – TISS.
A division bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice M.M. Sathaye observed that the said protest/march was politically motivated and noted that TISS was correct in finding that Ramadas created an impression that the views expressed in the march represented the views of the institute and that this brought disrepute to the institute.
Judge Who Resigned Also Entitled To Pension Benefits As Judge Who Retired : Bombay High Court
Case title: Pushpa W/O Virendra Ganediwala vs. High Court Of Judicature Of Bombay Through Registrar General
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 93
The Bombay High Court has observed that the 'resignation' of a High Court Judge constitutes 'retirement' under the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Services) Act 1954 and thus a judge who resigned from services would also be entitled to the same pensionary benefits as a judge who retired by superannuation.
Case Title: Sanjiv Mohan Gupta v. Sai Estate Consultants Chembur Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 94
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that where the correspondence between the parties included invoices which contained an arbitration clause and the parties acted upon those invoices without protesting, then it could be deemed that the party had accepted the arbitration clause.
Case Title: Tukaram Parab vs State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 95
In a significant order, the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court has said that the mindset to 'dilute' or 'stifle' the the fundamental right to protest of citizens, if gains traction, it would one of the saddest days of democracy.
A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Mahesh Sonak said the State must not launch prosecution only to stifle agitations, which are a part of the democratic process, at least till it does not turn violent.
Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Imposition Of Double Toll Fees On Non-FASTag Vehicles
Case title: Arjun Raju Khanapure vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 96
The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging circulars issued by the National Highways Authority of India, which mandates vehicles without 'FASTag' to pay double the toll fees.
Noting that the introduction of FASTag was a policy decision aimed for providing efficient road travel, a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre rejected the petitioner's contention that mandating the use of FASTag violates the fundamental rights of citizens.
Bombay High Court Grants Relief To Gautam Adani In 2012 Cheating Case Worth ₹388 Crore
Case title: Rajesh Shantilal Adani & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. & Connected Matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 97
In a reprieve for industrialist Gautam Adani, the chairman of Adani Enterprises and its Managing Director Rajesh Adani, the Bombay High Court today quashed a sessions court order which refused to discharge them in a Rs 388 crore alleged market regulations violation case.
Single-judge Justice Rajesh Ladhha quashed the November 2019 order passed by a sessions court in Mumbai, which held that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) has made out a case against Adanis in the said market regulations violation case.
Case title: V. Ravi Prakash vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 98
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking investigation by CBI or SIT into alleged fraudulent bank guarantees accepted by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) from a private company, Megha Engineering Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL), for the construction of a Twin Tube Road Tunnel between Thane and Borivali worth around Rs.16,600.40 crore.
A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre remarked that the petitioner's conduct was mala fide and that the petition suppressed material facts.
Bombay HC Sets Aside ESIC Order For Denying Hearing And Relying On Undisclosed Reports
Case title: Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 99
A single judge bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh set aside the Employees' State Insurance Corporation's (ESIC) rejection of Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal. The court found that ESIC violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without granting a hearing, despite disputed facts about when the company received the original order.
The court also ruled that ESIC's order was flawed as it relied on an undisclosed committee report. Thus, the matter was remanded to the ESIC Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication.
Case Title: Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 100
The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Somsekhar Sundaresan has observed that once an arbitral award has been set aside by the court in the exercise of its powers under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the parties would be restored to the original position and a fresh arbitration in such circumstances would not amount to the proverbial “second bite at the cherry”.
Case Title: J Fibre Corporation v. Maruti Harishchandra Amrute
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 101
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne partially allowed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order. The court held that an employee who had already crossed retirement age could not be reinstated, but was entitled to lumpsum compensation for the period between illegal termination and retirement.
The court observed that while the employer had valid business reasons for reducing staff, failure to follow proper retrenchment procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act rendered the termination illegal. Thus, the court awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,58,073 covering the period from termination until the employee's retirement date.
Case Title: Raju Shetty vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 102
In a major relief for sugarcane farmers in Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court on Monday (March 17) quashed and set aside a Government Resolution (GR) which provided for a 'delayed and less' Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) to the farmers as it would affect them adversely.
A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna held that the GR issued by the Maharashtra government on February 21, 2022, was in contravention to the Sugar Control Order (SCO), 1966 issued by the Central government.
Case Title: Sheetal Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 103
The Bombay High Court denied anticipatory bail application of a woman employee of cooperative bank, who was booked for siphoning off Rs 46.58 lakhs money off the bank's customers, even after she returned the defrauded amount to the bank. Single-judge Justice Rajesh Patil refused to consider the fact that the applicant before him was a. woman and had already returned the Rs 46.58 lakhs to the bank.
Case Tile: Deepak Vallabhdas Intwala v. Casby Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 104
A Single Judge Bench of Justice R.I. Chagla ruled that claims under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act must be supported by clear entitlements arising from statute, contract, or custom. The court clarified that a “cease and desist” direction in an order declaring a transfer illegal does not automatically create monetary entitlements. Furthermore, it ruled that Section 33C(2) proceedings cannot be used to establish new rights not determined previously.
Case title: Yuzvendra Chahal & Anr vs. Nil
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 105
In a relief for Indian cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai to decide the divorce petition filed by him and his estranged wife Dhanashree Verma, latest by Thursday itself, since he will be busy with the upcoming Indian Premiere League (IPL) from March 22.
Case Title: Manmohan Kapani Through Special Power of Attorney Chandani Sood Versus Kapani Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 106
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has injuncted the owner of Kapani Resorts and Greater Kailash Property from alienating any interest in the Resorts and the property under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), until the conclusion of arbitral proceedings.
Case Title: Suraj Mishra vs Chief Executive Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 107
In a relief to Union Road Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition challenging his election to the 18th Lok Sabha from the Nagpur constituency, wherein he was accused of resorting to 'malpractices' by printing voter slips with his photos and BJP symbol on it and distributing the same to the voters.
Single-judge Justice Urmila Johsi-Phalke dismissed the election petition filed by one Suraj Mishra (30) on the ground that his plea fell short to establish how the alleged practice by Gadkari and his party workers 'materially affected' the election results.
Case Title: Vinod Kachave vs The Presiding Officer (ICC)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 108
Telling a woman colleague that 'you must be using JCB to manage your hair' and singing a song related to her hair, is not sexual harassment under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013, the Bombay High Court held recently while quashing a PoSH Act case against an employee of the HDFC bank.
Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne said it is difficult to hold that the conduct of the petitioner Vindo Kachave would amount to sexual harassment.
Case title: Vimal Dagadu Kate & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 109
The Bombay High Court has observed that a suit for recovery of possession of premises cannot be entertained by a Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizen Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
It further noted that a senior citizen cannot file such a suit for recovery of possession against another senior citizen under the provisions of the Act, and such an adjudication can be undertaken only before a Civil Court.
Case Title: National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED) Versus Roj Enterprises (P) Limited and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 110
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be dismissed merely by stating that the scope of interference is limited; the court must address each ground of challenge and provide reasoned findings.
Case Title: Narayan Pundalik Pathade v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Through Its Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 111
A Division Bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe ruled in favor of a retired Municipal Corporation employee, directing payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits. The court held that when retirement benefits are withheld due to pending inquiry and the employee is subsequently exonerated, interest becomes payable from the date following retirement. It clarified that the doctrine of restitution applies in such cases.
Case Title: NTPC BHEL Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shree Electricals & Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 112
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna has held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) can be extended to the petitioner who committed delay in filing an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) due to the prevailing legal position at the time of filing, which was subsequently changed.
Case Title: Kailash Chandak vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 113
The Bombay High Court last week quashed a stalking case against a retired professor, who sent an 'obscene and objectionable' message to a female colleague, after noting that the accused was suffering from 'mental imbalance.' A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shriram Modak noted that the complainant woman, too have given her consent to quash the First Information Report (FIR) that she lodged against him with the Malabar Hill Police station.
Case Title: Suresh Raithatha Adult and Anr. VERSUS Bharti Navnit Raithatha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 114
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil has held that the decision of the Arbitrator to postpone the issue of determining the date of dissolution of the partnership firm to the stage of final hearing cannot be considered perverse for the purpose of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), as it requires evidence to be presented, which is necessary for such an issue to be decided.
Case Title: V C vs N C
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 115
The Bombay High Court has held that a spouse threatening to commit suicide and even attempting the same, would amount to cruelty and it can be a ground for one to seek divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. Justice RM Joshi dismissed the second appeal filed by a woman, who challenged a judgment of a Family Court, which had granted decree of divorce in favour of the husband with a finding that his wife subjected him to cruelty.
Case Title: Anudan Properties Private Ltd. vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region, Slum Rehabilitation Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 116
In a significant ruling, particularly for slum dwellers and also developers, the Bombay High Court recently held that it is the 'statutory obligation' of the developer to pay the transit rent to slum dwellers, who await rehabilitation of their homes.
Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar upheld the termination of a developer, who was initially engaged for a rehabilitation scheme of a slum in Thane district, after noting that the developer - Anudan Properties Private Ltd. defaulted in paying transit rents to the slum dwellers, since 2019.
Case Title: Sawkash Autorickshaw Union vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 117
The Bombay High Court recently ordered Maharashtra's Transport Commissioner to decide whether the 'open licensing policy' for autorickshaws and taxis–which has been questioned by an autorickshaw union–can be stopped so as to limit the number of autos and taxis in the State.
Case Title: Mohammad Yusuf vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 118
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a detention order of a man after noting the fact that the detaining authority did not serve all the documents pertaining to his detention in 'Urdu' - the language he was only conversant with.
Case Title: Rahul Bacchav vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 119
Observing that after 78 years of independence, the Indian population is wise and educated, the Bombay High Court on Friday permitted a Hindu organisation to organise "Viraat Hindu Sant Sammelan" and confer the "Hindu Veer Puraskar" on right-wing extremist Pragyasingh Thakur, a prime accused in the 2008 Malegaon Bomb Blasts case.
Case Title: Shaikh Sadique Isaq Qureshi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 120
Merely giving speeches about legal awareness and making the members aware about their rights and how to respond when the police comes for an enquiry is not an 'anti-national' activity, the Bombay High Court held on Friday while ordering release of a member of the Popular Front of India (PFI).
A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shriram Modak granted bail to Shaikh Sadique Isaq Qureshi, a member of PFI, who was booked for giving various speeches creating legal awareness, being in touch with other members of the PFI, who had prepared a 'roadmap' titled "Roadmap For Regaining Glory of Islam In India By 2047" by which it was aimed to convert India into an Islamic State.
Case Title: Fab Tech Works & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Savvology Games Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 121
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the mere invocation of Section 9 and Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not amount to parallel proceedings. Further, the High Court noted that Section 9 is intended to provide interim relief to safeguard the subject matter of arbitration. On the other hand, Section 11 is limited to the appointment of an arbitrator when there is a dispute regarding the arbitration agreement.
Case title: Dabur India Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (WRIT PETITION NO. 2131 OF 2025)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 122
Dabur India Ltd submitted an affidavit before the Bombay High Court that it would no longer use 'anti-inflammatory', 'anti-bacterial' and 'analgesic' on its toothpastes, in view of an order by the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Government of Maharashtra. A division bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna accepted Dabur's statement that it would remove the said labels. It stated that with effect from June 2025, the product ought not to be manufactured or sold with the said labels either on the box or on the products.
Other Orders/Observations:
The Bombay High Court on Monday agreed to grant an urgent hearing to former Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Madhabi Puri Buch and also to two officials of the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), who have challenged the order of a special PMLA court that on Saturday ordered the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mumbai to lodge an FIR against them.
While hearing the matter in which a contempt of court notice was issued against a Navi Mumbai-based society's female resident for making objectionable comments against judges over their order in favour of dog feeders, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday sought to know from where the woman conceived the idea of calling courts as 'dog mafias' and making other objectionable remarks against the courts.
On whether it will register an FIR based on the "findings" of an Enquiry Magistrate, who concluded that the five policemen killed the accused of the Badlapur Sexual Assault case in a "fake encounter", the Maharashtra government today told the Bombay High Court that it cannot say the report constituted "material" to comply with the mandate in the Lalita Kumari judgment (to lodge FIR).
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday was informed that the Maharashtra government has refused to grant sanction to 'prosecute' Vikram Pawaskar, the former BJP State Vice President, in two cases of 'hate speech' against the Muslim community.
The Bombay High Court is to decide whether the donuts and cakes should be classified as restaurant service or a bakery product under Goods and Services Tax. The Division Bench of Justices B.P Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla were addressing the issue of whether the supply of donuts falls within the ambit of restaurant services under Service Accounting Code (SAC) 9963 or should be categorized as a bakery product subject to separate tax treatment under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework.
While hearing a petition filed by a septuagenarian woman, a victim of 'digital arrest' who lost Rs 32 lakhs, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed displeasure over the fact that the national helpline number '1930' for 'cyber fraud' has not been working 'effectively.' A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale observed that the concerned authorities should either ensure the toll-free number 1930 works or just tell citizens that they can't help them.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (March 05) reserved judgment in an interim application for dismissing a PIL seeking CBI or SIT investigation into the alleged bank fraud guarantees accepted by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) from a private company for the construction of a Twin Tube Road Tunnel between Thane and Borivali worth around Rs.16,600.40 crore.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (March 5) restrained an entity from using a trade mark which is 'deceptively similar' to hair colour brand - 'Streax.' Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale in his order, noted that the plaintiff - Hygienic Research Institute Private Limited owner of the trademark 'Streax' successfully brought on record the fact that it has been using this trademark since July 1, 2002 while the defendant company trademark 'Streak Street' was registered only in 2018.
While hearing the petition filed by a septuagenarian woman, who was kept in 'digital arrest' and duped of Rs 32 lakhs, the Bombay High Court on Thursday pulled up the police officers of the Mumbai Police who initially refused to lodge the FIR and then conducted a 'shabby probe.'
Bombay High Court Issues Notice On PIL Seeking Allotment Of Land For Labour Court In Solapur
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Bombay High Court seeking allotment of land for an Industrial Court in Solapur. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre today issued notice to the State and sought its response.
The Bombay High Court last week ordered the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to "put is own house in order" and ensure that the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) complies with its order to decide on the representation of the Telangana Cricket Association (TCA) to become an "associate member" of the central cricket body.
Senior Advocate Manjula Rao, who was appointed as an Amicus Curiae in the Badlapur Encounter Case, wherein the accused in the Badlapur Sexual Assault case was allegedly killed in a staged encounter, on Monday told the Bombay High Court that the State Police had no choice but to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) against the errant cops but they have not filed one yet.
A Mumbai Sessions Court on Tuesday granted anticipatory bail to Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Asim Azmi, who is booked in a criminal case for praising Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb and calling him a 'good administrator'.
Observing that even genuine cases of rape get affected because of 'false rape cases', the Bombay High Court on Wednesday ordered the Director General of Police (DGP), Maharashtra to consider the representation of a Navi Mumbai-based man, who has sought an enquiry against a police officer, who has been 'instrumental' in lodging false rape cases against 'innocent men' at the behest of 'serial' complainants, who target professionals for 'sextortion.'
The Bombay High Court has sought response from the US-based company Shutterstock, various State government, political parties and private agencies in relation to a plea by a woman alleging unauthorised use of her photographs by political parties and state governments in advertising their different schemes. Taking note of the serious concerns raised by the woman concerning her right to privacy, a division bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna opined that the case prima facie appears to be a commercial exploitation of the woman's photos.
Days after the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court temporarily stayed the operation of a resolution passed by the Gram Sabha of Madhi village in Ahilyanagar district, which banned Muslims from installing any shops during the annual Kanfinath Yatra in the Pathardia Tehsil, a group of more than 30 hawkers unions have now urged Chief Justice Alok Aradhe to intervene in the issue as the local leaders in the area been giving bytes to the media that 'no Muslim vendor would be allowed to do business' during the annual fair.
While hearing a 2011 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of the Bombay Habitual Offenders Act 1959, the Bombay High Court noted that the State government has not filed an affidavit in response to the PIL for a long period of time.
The Bombay High Court last week asked the Ministry of Defence not to deprive any student of their right to education by shutting the gates of the Naval Civilian Housing Colony (NCHC) in Mumbai's Kanjurmarg area, because of which children are compelled to walk around 3 kilometres to reach their school which is situated within its premises.
In relation to a suo motu PIL on the conditions of sugarcane workers, the State government told the Bombay High Court that it has accepted all the suggestions made by the amicus curiae to improve the conditions of the workers and safeguard their rights.
Dr Anand Teltumbde, one of the accused in the Bhima-Koregaon case, has approached the Bombay High Court seeking permission to travel abroad from Mumbai to Amsterdam as well as the United Kingdom to attend academic assignments.
A Family Court in Mumbai on Thursday dissolved the marriage between Indian cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal and his estranged wife Dhanashree Verma. This comes after the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (March 19) ordered the Family Court in Mumbai's Bandra area, to decide the couple's petition for divorce by 'mutual consent' today itself, noting that Chahal has to join his team Kings XI Punjab for the upcoming season of the Indian Premier League (IPL) from March 22.
“Is the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) a governing body with no teeth?” asked the Bombay High Court on Friday while it noted the apex cricket body's submission that it cannot make both Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) and the Telangana Cricket Association (TCA) sit together and resolve the dispute over the membership of the latter in the BCCI.
