2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 22 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 35Nominal Index:The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement vs. The Branch Manager, The Goa State Co-op Bank Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 22Health Care, Medical & General Stores Versus Amulya Investment,Through Proprietor Mr. Sameer G. Narvekar, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 23Hushad Neville Bacha vs Eric Girgol Vegas, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 24Rakesh...
2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 22 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 35
Nominal Index:
The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement vs. The Branch Manager, The Goa State Co-op Bank Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 22
Health Care, Medical & General Stores Versus Amulya Investment,Through Proprietor Mr. Sameer G. Narvekar, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 23
Hushad Neville Bacha vs Eric Girgol Vegas, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 24
Rakesh Brijlal Jain vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 25
Shubhamkaroti Charitable Trust And Anr. vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 26
Shravani Suryavanshi vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 27
RD vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 28
Navneet Singh Gogia & anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 29
Seawoods Estates Ltd. vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 30
Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association vs Commissioner of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 31
Sabyasachi Nishank vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 32
Sukhshanti Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs. Nishant M. Mahimtura & ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 33
An Advocate vs Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 34
Balya @ Rahul Sahebrao Lokhande vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 35
Judgments/Final Orders:
Case title: The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement vs. The Branch Manager, The Goa State Co-op Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 22
The Bombay High Court has held that a delay in filing an appeal under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) cannot be condoned by the High Court beyond 120 days as stipulated in the provision.
A division bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan stated that Section 42 PMLA excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which permits the court to condone delay if the applicant shows sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the stipulated period.
Case Title: Health Care, Medical & General Stores Versus Amulya Investment,Through Proprietor Mr. Sameer G. Narvekar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 23
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil has held that service of a signed copy of an award on an employee of a party to an arbitration agreement is not a valid service under section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: Hushad Neville Bacha vs Eric Girgol Vegas
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 24
While quashing a First Information Report (FIR) against a 22-year-old man for driving a two-wheeler without a helmet and licence in 2017 (when he was 17-years-old), the Bombay High Court asked him to perform 'community service' at a hospital for four Sundays. The court further directed him to deposit his licence with the Mumbai Police for nearly three months and not to drive any vehicle in this period.
Case Title: Rakesh Brijlal Jain vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 25
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday while imposing an exemplary costs of Rs 1 lakh on the Enforcement Directorate (ED) observed that it is high time that the central agencies like the ED should conduct themselves within the parameters of law and stop taking the law in the own hands and harass citizens.
Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav said a 'strong message' needs to be sent to the law enforcement agencies to ensure that the citizens are not harassed.
Case title: Shubhamkaroti Charitable Trust And Anr. vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 26
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (January 22) disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to permit students with dysgraphia, a learning disability, to give oral examinations for their board examinations.
As the government policy permitted writers for such students, a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre said that no further orders need to be passed in the petition.
Case Title: Shravani Suryavanshi vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 27
The Bombay High Court recently expressed displeasure over the manner in which the Sports fraternity in Maharashtra suffers due to the 'apathy' of the State government, in shortlisting the State's Diving Team (women) for participating in the National Games to be held on January 29, in Uttarakhand.
Case Title: RD vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 28
While acquitting a 43-year-old man convicted for raping his own minor daughter, the Bombay High Court observed that in ordinary circumstances, a daughter will not level such allegation against her father and even the father will not rape his own daughter.
Sitting at theNagpur bench, Justice Govind Sanap considered the 'human psychology' in which 'mistakes can occur.'
Case title: Navneet Singh Gogia & anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 29
The Bombay High Court has observed that a Magistrate is justified in proceeding with a trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) in the absence of the accused and without recording a statement under Section 313 CrPC, if the accused or their advocate has not been attending the trial or the accused has not sought for dispensing personal attendance.
Case Title: Seawoods Estates Ltd. vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 30
The Bombay High Court recently restrained a housing society from preventing the house help of a woman from entering the society premises and assisting the woman, because she (the resident) feeds stray dogs.
A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna said the housing society, by restraining the woman's house help and other staff from entering the premises, was only breaching her fundamental rights.
Case Title: Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association vs Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 31
The Bombay High Court on Thursday said that using loudspeakers for prayers or for reciting religious discourses is not an essential part of any religion and therefore, ordered the Mumbai Police to strictly implement the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 and ensure that no religious place creates noise pollution by using loudspeakers.
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Shyam Chandak noted that Mumbai being a 'cosmopolitan' city, people from different religions live here.
Case Title: Sabyasachi Nishank vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 32
In an interesting bail order, the Bombay High Court on Thursday while granting bail to a 'highly educated' man jailed for drunk driving, ordered him to perform community service by manning traffic in the busy junction at Mumbai's plush Worli area for three months (12 Saturdays and 12 Sundays), with a placard in his hand reading "Don't Drink & Drive."
Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav noted that the applicant Sabyasachi Nishank, was working as a Senior Vice President in a NBFC namely Centrum Wealth Limited, his father was a retired officer of Reserve Bank of India and his mother a business woman.
Case title: Sukhshanti Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs. Nishant M. Mahimtura & ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 33
The Bombay High Court recently initiated suo moto contempt against two flat owners, who demolished the walls of their flat along with a flat owned by another person resulting in structural alterations, without necessary permission from the BMC.
A division bench of Justice Kamal Khata and Justice A.S. Gadkari observed that despite action initiated by the petitioner-society and order of the Court permitting the BMC to take action against the flat owners, they failed to restore the flats to their original position.
Case Title: An Advocate vs Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 34
The Bombay High Court recently stayed an order passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) by which it had suspended the licence of a Mumbai-based female advocate over a complaint by few members of the Advocate Association of Western India (AAWI)
A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna questioned the manner in which both the BCI and the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) dealt with the complaint against the female advocate in total disregard to principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Balya @ Rahul Sahebrao Lokhande vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 35
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that a woman, who is raped, would be in shock and thus she cannot be expected to travel alone in the night to the police station to lodge a criminal complaint against the accused person.
Single-judge Justice Govind Sanap made the observation while upholding a man's conviction for raping a woman. The judge refused to accept the contention of the convict that there was a delay in lodging of the First Information Report (FIR) on part of the victim as she went to the police station on the next day of the alleged incident.
Other Orders/Observations:
In relation to a plea filed by the father of the Badlapur school sexual assault accused who died in an alleged fake encounter, a Magistrate Enquiry report has been submitted before the Bombay High Court.
A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale today (20 January) read out the report in open court. "It is said that as per the material collected and the FSL reports, the allegations of the parents of the deceased are justified and these five policemen are responsible for his death," the bench said.
Bombay High Court Refuses To Stay Release Of Akshay Kumar's 'Sky Force'
The Bombay High Court on Thursday refused to grant any ad-interim order to stay the release of Akshay Kumar - starrer 'Sky Force' film, which is expected to hit the screens from Friday (January 24).
Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale noted that the plaintiff Sandeep Gangatkar, who claimed that the film's theme has breached his copyright work titled 'Free Bird' which he created in 2014 and shared with the makers of the film. The judge noted that the teaser of the film was out in public domain ever since October 2, 2023 and from time-to-time news articles were published in various leading media platforms yet the plaintiff approached the court at the eleventh hour.
The Union of India (UOI) today told the Bombay High Court that it is currently not acting on notification which prohibited the import, breed and selling of 23 dog breeds deemed 'dangerous and ferocious'.
The notification dated 12 March 2024 issued by the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, UOI declared 23 dog breeds including Pitbull Terrier, Rottweiler and Mastiffs as 'dangerous and ferocious' and banned their import, sale and rearing.