Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 5 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 18:Nominal Index:Jindal Cocoa LLP & ors. vs. Reserve Bank of India & ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 5Charushila Bira Shriram vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 6Dnyaneshwar Lingappa Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 7Vijay Sonkar and Others vs State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 5 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 18:
Nominal Index:
Jindal Cocoa LLP & ors. vs. Reserve Bank of India & ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 5
Charushila Bira Shriram vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 6
Dnyaneshwar Lingappa Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 7
Vijay Sonkar and Others vs State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 8
Rona Wilson vs. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 9
XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 10
Sunil Modi vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 11
Yushika Gedam vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 12
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Anusaya Sitaram Devrukhkar & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 13
Sanket More vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 14
Bharti Neeraj Chaourasiya vs. Indian Overseas Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 15
Amit Vyas vs. Union Of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 16
Shreegopal Barasia Versus M/s. Creative Homes & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 17
VC vs RC, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 18
Judgments/Final Orders:
Case title: Jindal Cocoa LLP & ors. vs. Reserve Bank of India & ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 5
2015 RBI Master Circular | Mere Delay In Submitting Export Documents Wouldn't Disqualify Credit Advanced As 'Export Credit': Bombay High Court
Interpreting Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) 2015 Master Circular on Rupee/Foreign Currency Export Credit & Customer Service to Exporters, the Bombay High Court said that a delay in submitting export documents despite the export taking place within the given time, would not result in the credit ceasing to be an 'export credit'.
Case title: Charushila Bira Shriram vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 6
The Bombay High Court has observed that the immunity of two years given to a Sarpanch against No Confidence Motion under the 4th proviso of Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 is to be computed from the date of the first election and not from when a subsequent Sarpanch is elected for filling the vacancy.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh was of the view that the “date of election” in the provision indicates that the words are situation-specific and not person-specific.
Case title: Dnyaneshwar Lingappa Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 7
The Bombay High has directed the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and the Solapur Municipal Corporation to pay Rs. 50000 each to three landowners whose properties were requisitioned by the Collector under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, and remained in possession of MHADA after the expiry of the requisition period without formal notification of acquisition under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act).
Case Title: Vijay Sonkar and Others vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 8
The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash two cross First Information Reports (FIR) lodged by Hindu and Muslim families against each other respectively after the two families allegedly had a scuffle.
In doing so a division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Rajesh Patil noted that the 'communal frenzy' between the two communities, which led to a scuffle and thus, both the families ended up lodging cross cases against each other.
Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Rona Wilson & Sudhir Dhawale In Bhima-Koregaon Elgar Parishad Case
Case Title: Rona Wilson vs. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 9
In a major relief for researcher Rona Wilson and activist Sudhir Dhawale, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (January 8) granted them bail in the Bhima-Koregaon Elgar Parishad case.
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata considered the fact that the duo have spent more than 6 years in jail as undertrials.
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 10
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against two maternal uncles and aunts of a man at the behest of his wife, on the ground that they got him married to the complainant woman, despite knowing that he could not develop physical relations with any woman.
A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Rajesh Patil said whether a husband suffers from such a medical condition or not, is usually known to himself and generally such information is not known even to the nearest relatives.
Case title: Sunil Modi vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 11
While dismissing the plea filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sunil Modi, challenging the Governor's decision permitting the State government to withdraw 12 Member of Legislative Council's (MLC) nominations, the Bombay High Court observed that as no 'decision' was taken by the Governor on the earlier advice tendered by the Council of Ministers for nomination of 12 MLCs, no right was conferred on the recommended members.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar opined that since there was no Government Order as per the requirements of Article 166 of the Constitution giving effect to the names recommended, the Council of Ministers had discretion to withdraw the recommendations.
Case Title: Yushika Gedam vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 12
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday while emphasising that travelling abroad has become an essential requirement of modern life, held that the right to travel must not only be recognised but also be made more meaningful.
A division bench Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna made the observations while pulling up the Passport Authorities for refusing to re-issue a passport to a minor girl, who wanted to visit Japan for an educational event sponsored by her school.
Case title: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Anusaya Sitaram Devrukhkar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 13
The Bombay High Court has observed that a delay in filing an appeal against the award of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act') cannot be condoned by the court beyond a period of 120 days as provided under Section 74(1) of the Act.
A division bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan noted that as the proviso to Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act specifically states that High Court cannot condone delay for a further period of exceeding 60 days, after the initial period of 60 days, this amounts to express exclusion of the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Bombay High Court Declines To Quash FIR Lodged By Wife Against Husband For Outraging Her Modesty
Case Title: Sanket More vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 14
The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man by his estranged wife, for outraging her modesty.
A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Rajesh Patil refused to quash a FIR lodged with the Kasturba Sub Police Station in Malvani, Mumbai, under sections 354 (outraging modesty of a woman), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 323 (causing voluntarily hurt) lodged against the husband by his wife.
Case title: Bharti Neeraj Chaourasiya vs. Indian Overseas Bank
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 15
The Bombay High Court recently chastised the Indian Overseas Bank for denying the request of one of its employees to reverse her promotion in Chennai and transfer her back to Mumbai, so that she could better care for her visually impaired child.
Remarking that the bank's approach lacked 'human sensitivity', a division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe said it was making an 'exception' to allow the petitioner to return to her original post in Mumbai.
Coldplay Concert: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Guidelines On Ticket Scalping
Case title: Amit Vyas vs. Union Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 16
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning 'ticket scalping' and black marketing of online tickets for concerts and other events.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar said that the matter fell within the purview of police making and thus the Court could not entertain it.
Case Title: Shreegopal Barasia Versus M/s. Creative Homes & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 17
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that substantive objections concerning the validity and existence of an arbitration agreement can be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal and not by the court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: VC vs RC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 18
A wife filing a false complaint against her husband just for correcting his behaviour would not find place in harmonious relations a married couple would maintain normally and the same will amount to cruelty, the Bombay High Court held recently.
A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna refused to interfere with the decision of a Family Court, which while granting divorce to a couple noted the fact that the wife had lodged a false case against the husband and his family members, which caused them mental cruelty.
Other Orders/Observations:
The Bombay High Court on Friday (January 3) pulled up a sexagenarian couple, who moved the court seeking permission for aborting the 20-week pregnancy of their adopted daughter, whom they claimed is "mentally unstable."
A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Rajesh Patil was irked to note that the senior citizen couple, who adopted the girl in 1998, allowed the girl to be away from house for hours altogether, ever since she attained the age of 13 years.
The Bombay High Court on Monday (January 6) ordered enquiry against a Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), who sent a friend request to a complainant woman on social media platform - FaceBook (FB).
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale questioned the motive of the PSI in sending a friend request to the complainant woman on FB.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (January 8) while dealing with a plea of a sexagenarian couple, seeking termination of their "mentally ill" daughter's 21 week pregnancy, sought to know if a woman having an intelligence, below average, has no right to be a mother.
Two Afghanistani national women, who are facing life threat from their families as one of them married a Hindu man from Haryana, have approached the Bombay High Court seeking police protection and also a direction to the authorities in Delhi close a criminal case lodged against them at the behest of their family members.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday slammed the Maharashtra government and also the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for their failure to reduce the air pollution levels in Mumbai and nearby cities and act against the major contributors to the pollution, particularly the bakeries in the city.
Bombay High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance On Protection And Preservation Of Wetlands In State
The Bombay High Court today (10 January) took suo moto cognisance of the issue pertaining to the maintenance and preservation of wetlands in Maharashtra.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar said that it was taking cognizance of the matter based on Supreme Court's order in the case of Anand Arya vs. UOI (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 304/2018).
