Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: August 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 316 To 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 355State of Maharashtra v Sanjay, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 316Shankar Govindrao Lang vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 317Salim Baig vs Sayyad Nawid, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 318Krishnagopal B. Nangpal vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range – 3, Pune, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 319Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar vs Sandip Madhav Khase, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 320Pune Municipal Corporation vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 321Sumanbai vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 322Sachin Malpani vs Nilam Patil, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 323FICCI vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 324Sarva Shramik Sangh vs The Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 325Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 326Shivshankar vs Sanjay, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 327Jayesh Bandu Limie vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 328Babu Abdul Ruf Sarkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 329Shashikant Vitthal Kothawade vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 330Ashwini Trading Co. vs Housing Bank Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 331Sarfaraz Sayyad vs State of Goa, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 332Siddharth Iswar Motghare vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 333Zulferkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 334The Commissioner of Sales Tax vs M/s. Associated Cement Company Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 335Kalpesh Rajendra Jain vs Pramod Gaurishankar Todi, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 336Jaykumar B. Patil vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 337Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 338Aditya Ramchandra Patil vs Yuvraj Bhivaji Patil, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 339Commissioners of Customs (Export) v. Bank of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 340Narendra Bhuva vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 341M/s. Eagle Security & Personnel Services vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 342Sony Mony Electronics Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 343Deepak Babasaheb Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 344Ganesh Kumar Yadav vs Captain R Tamil Selvan, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 345Arcee Electronics vs Arceeika, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 346Sunil vs Star India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 347Dnyaneshwar vs Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 348Bhanuchandra J Doshi vs Ms Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 349Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sangathana vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 350The North Goa (Non-Gazetted) Judicial Court Employees Association vs State of Goa, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 351Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Vinod Anandrao Parate, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 352JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. vs Amarlal Parashramji Sharma, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 353Sateri Builders & Developers LLP vs Minister of State, Home (Rural) Housing School Education Co-operative Mining Department, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 354Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Raigad, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 355Judgments/Final Orders:Discharge Of Public Servant Accused Of Corruption Due To Invalid Sanction Doesn't Bar Second Trial After Obtaining Sanction: Bombay High CourtCase Title: State of Maharashtra v SanjayCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 316The Bombay High Court has held that where prosecution against a public servant for corruption is initiated without valid sanction from the competent authority, the entire trial stands vitiated; however, a fresh trial is not barred if a valid sanction is subsequently obtained. The Court highlighted that discharge in such a manner will send a wrong signal to society.Purpose Of Allowing Furlough Is For Social Integration, Mere Overstay Doesn't Justify Continued Denial Of Leave: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Shankar Govindrao Lang vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 317The Bombay High Court has held that mere past instances of overstay during furlough, particularly if they occurred over a decade ago, cannot by themselves justify the continued denial of furlough leave, especially when the convict has not been released since. It reiterated that such denial defeats the very objective of reformation and social reintegration underlying the concept of furlough.Unstamped Agreement Cannot Be Basis For Granting Temporary Injunction Even If Its Execution Is Accepted By Defendant: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Salim Baig vs Sayyad NawidCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 318The Bombay High Court has held that an agreement which is unstamped and unregistered cannot be relied upon to grant interim injunctions, even if its execution is admitted by the defendant, as such a document is inadmissible in law until duly stamped and impounded under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. Single-judge Justice Santosh Chapalgaonkar was hearing a writ petition challenging the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and appellate court granting a temporary injunction against the petitioner, thereby...

Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: August 2025

Narsi Benwal

Tags