Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: January 2025 [Citations 01 - 43]

Nominal Index:

Smita Pansare vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 (LiveLaw) Bom 1

Prameya Welfare Foundation vs. State Of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 2

Shweta Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 3

Amit Chavan vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 4

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

MM vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 19

Rupali Ganguly vs Esha Verma, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 20

Vaibhav Mawale vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 21

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

Sri Sathe Infracon Private Limited v. M/s Rudranee Infrastructure Ltd. & another, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 36

Nikhil Ranjwan vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 37

Asif Shaikh vs. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 38

Sachin Prakashrao Andure vs. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 39

Wonderchef Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. vs Shree Swaminarayanan Pty Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 40

Court's on its own motion vs. State of Maharashtra Department of School Education, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 41

Amit Dholakia vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 42

Avinash Benewal vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 43

Judgments/Final Orders:

Will Not Monitor Trial In Govind Pansare Murder Case: Says Bombay High Court, Orders Daily Hearing In The Matter

Case Title: Smita Pansare vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 (LiveLaw) Bom 1

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (January 2) said it will not continue to monitor the trial in the murder case of communist party of India (CPI) leader Govind Pansare, who was allegedly shot down by right-wing extremists in August 2013.

A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata while disposing of an application moved by prime accused Virendra Tawade, said the only aspect which is being investigated as on date is the whereabouts of the absconding accused in the case.

Take Steps To Ensure Eligible Women Receive Benefits Under Altered Ladki Bahin Scheme: Bombay High Court To State

Case title: Prameya Welfare Foundation vs. State Of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 2

While disposing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought the implementation 'Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana' for all eligible women in the State, the Bombay High Court has observed that the State must take the necessary steps to ensure that all the eligible women are entitled to the benefits of the altered scheme.

Mumbai Police Shuts Forgery Case Against Actor Shweta Tiwari, Bombay High Court Permits Her To Withdraw Plea To Quash FIR

Case Title: Shweta Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 3

The Mumbai Police last month informed the Bombay High Court that it has shut the 'forgery' case against TV actor Shweta Tiwari, lodged by her estranged husband Abhinav Kohli in 2021.

A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Dr Neela Gokhale permitted Tiwari to withdraw her writ petition before the High Court, by virtue of which the silver screen actor had sought to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against her by Kohli.

Following A Girl Only Once Will Not Amount To Stalking: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Amit Chavan vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 4

In a significant order, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that merely following a girl or a victim once, will not amount to stalking as prescribed under the 354-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the provisions under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

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'.

2-Yrs Immunity Against No-Confidence Motion Is From Date Of Election Of First Sarpanch, Not From When New Sarpanch Fills Vacancy: Bombay HC

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.

Bombay HC Imposes ₹1.5L Costs On MHADA, Municipal Corporation For Holding Possession Of Properties Beyond Requisition Period

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).

'Communal Frenzy' Led to Scuffle Between Hindu & Muslim Family: Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash Cross FIRs Against Both Families

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.

Husband's Inability To Develop Sexual Relations With Wife Is Generally Not Known To Even Nearest Relatives: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR

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.

No Right Conferred On Proposed MLCs Until Governor's Decision Under Article 166, Council Of Ministers Can Withdraw Nominations: Bombay HC

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.

Travelling Abroad Not Fanciful But Essential In Today's Times, Right To Travel Should Be Made More Meaningful: Bombay High Court

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. 

[LARR Act, 2013] Court Cannot Condone Delay Beyond 120-Day Period In Appeal Against Award Of Compensation: Bombay High Court

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.

Bombay High Court Reprimands Bank For Denying Employee's Request To Reverse Promotion To Care For Visually Impaired Child, Imposes ₹25K Cost

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.

Substantive Objections On Validity Or Existence Of Arbitration Agreement Can Be Adjudicated By Tribunal U/S 16 Of Act: Bombay HC

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.

Wife Filing False Case Against Husband, In-Laws To Correct His Behaviour Is Cruelty, Not Acceptable In Marital Relations: Bombay High Court

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.

Merely Telling Wife She Can't Cohabit With Husband Unless She Brings Money From Her Parents Without Further Action Not Harassment: Bombay HC

Case Title: MM vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 19

The Bombay High Court recently held that merely telling a woman that if she fails to bring the amount demanded by her husband or in-laws, from her parental house, she would not be allowed to cohabit with her husband, will not amount to mental or physical harassment.

A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi noted that the wife in her First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the husband and her in-laws, had stated that they had asked her to bring Rs 5 lakh from her parents' house so that the husband can pay the same for getting a permanent job in public service. She however, stated that her parents are poor and thus, would not be in a position to pay the said amount.

Bombay High Court Restrains Rupali Ganguly's Step Daughter From Giving Defamatory Interviews & Posts Against Her

Case Title: Rupali Ganguly vs Esha Verma

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 20

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday in an ad-interim order, restrained Esha Verma and John Doe platforms from making or publishing any defamatory content against TV actor Rupali Ganguly.

Single-judge Justice Arif Doctor passed the order after it noted that the posts and interviews by Esha, the step-daughter of Rupali, were prima facie defamatory.

Man's Refusal To Marry Woman After Break-Up Of Relationship Not Grounds To Book Him For Abetting Her Suicide: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vaibhav Mawale vs State of Maharashtra 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 21

The Bombay High Court bench at Nagpur on Wednesday held that just because a woman committed suicide after her 'long standing relationship' was broken up by the man, he cannot be booked for abetting her suicide.

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke discharged a man booked for abetting the suicide of a woman, with whom he was in a relationship for 9 years.

S.42 PLMA Excludes Applicability Of Section 5 Limitation Act, Delay In Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned Beyond 120 Days: Bombay High Court

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.

Serving Signed Copy Of Award To Employee Of Party Does Not Constitute Valid Service U/S 31(5) Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

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.

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Man For Driving Without Helmet, Orders Him To Perform Community Service At Hospital

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.

Bombay High Court's 'Strong Message' To ED: Act As Per Law, Don't Harass Citizens; Imposes 1 Lakh Cost

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.

Bombay HC Disposes PIL Seeking Oral Exams For Students With Learning Disability, After State Submits That Its Policy Provides For Writers

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.

Sports Fraternity Suffers Due To Apathy From Maha Govt: Bombay High Court On Entry Of Women Swimmers' Team In National Games

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.

No Father Would Sexually Assault His Daughter And No Daughter Would Level Such Allegations Against Her Father But Mistakes Can Occur: Bombay HC

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.'

S.138 NI Act | Trial Can Proceed In Absence Of Accused If He Fails To Appear And Doesn't Seek Exemption From Personal Attendance: Bombay HC

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.

Society Cannot Restrain House Help From Rendering Services To Resident Who Feeds Stray Dogs In The Premises: Bombay High Court

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.

Use Of Loudspeakers Not 'Essential Religious Practice': Bombay HC Asks Mumbai Police To Act Against Use Of Loudspeakers At Religious Places

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.

Bombay High Court Grants Bail To IIM Graduate Booked For Drunk Driving; Orders Him To Man Traffic, Display Placard 'Don't Drink & Drive'

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.

Bombay HC Issues Suo Motu Contempt Against Flat Owners For Illegal Constructions, Reprimands BMC For Failure To Take Necessary Actions

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.

Bombay High Court Pulls Up BCI, BCMG For Suspending Female Lawyer's Licence Without Following Principles Of Natural Justice

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.

Victim Would Be In Shock After Rape, Can't Be Expected To Travel Alone At Night To Lodge FIR: Bombay High Court Upholds Man's Conviction

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.

Court Cannot Assume Jurisdiction To Appoint Arbitrator Unless Request For Reference Of Dispute Is Received By Respondent: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sri Sathe Infracon Private Limited v. M/s Rudranee Infrastructure Ltd. & another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 36

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice R. M. Joshi has held that compliance with Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory and that the court cannot assume jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11 unless a request for a reference of dispute is received by the respondent.

An Individual Can't Be Subjected To Preventive Detention Just Because They Participated In Political Rally Which Turned Violent: Bombay HC

Case Title: Nikhil Ranjwan vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 37

Just because an individual participated in a political rally and the same turned violent later will not be a ground to initiate preventive detention process against them, said the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court while ordering the release of a man booked for participating in a rally demanding reservations to the Maratha Community.

A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit Joshi noted that the petitioner before it was booked in a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on October 31, 2023 for participating in a political rally demanding Maratha Reservation and subsequently, the rally turned violent.

[Muslim Man Forced To Chant Jai Shree Ram] Transferred FIRs To Another Police Station: Maha Govt Tells Bombay HC

Case title: Asif Shaikh vs. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 38

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday accepted the statement of the Maharashtra government that it has transferred First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against a group of students, who were booked for allegedly assaulting a Muslim man and forcing him to chant "Jai Shree Ram."

Govind Pansare Murder Case: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Six Accused

Case title: Sachin Prakashrao Andure vs. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 39

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (January 29) granted bail to six men booked for the murder of communist party of India (CPI) leader Govind Pansare, who was allegedly shot down in August 2013.

While Commercial Speech Falls Within Free Speech, Contract Prohibit Adverse Remarks: Bombay HC Imposes 90-Day Injunction On Wonderchef's Distributor

Case Title: Wonderchef Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. vs Shree Swaminarayanan Pty Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 40

Observing that commercial speech is a part of 'free speech' guaranteed by the Constitution of India, the Bombay High Court imposed a 90-day injunction against an Australia-based distributor of Wonderchef Home Appliances, owned by Celebrity Chef Sanjeev Kapoor, from making any comments or communications which could harm the reputation of the company, due to a contractual clause preventing them from doing so.

'Open For State To Decide': Bombay High Court Disposes Suo Motu PIL On State Government's Proposed Cluster School Policy

Case title: Court's on its own motion vs. State of Maharashtra Department of School Education

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 41

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (January 29) disposed of a suo motu PIL concerning the State Government's proposed 'cluster school policy'.

A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre noted Advocate General Birendra Saraf's stand that the State government has not taken any policy decision on its proposal. 

Charging Stations For E-Vehicles In Housing Societies Will Help Reduce Air Pollution: Bombay High Court Asks State To Finalise Legal Framework

Case Title: Amit Dholakia vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 42

Observing that charging stations for electric vehicles within society premises will help reduce the menace of air pollution, the Bombay High Court recently ordered the Maharashtra government to finalise its policy with regard to installation of charging points/stations with the housing societies, at the earliest.

A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna while dealing with a petition filed by a businessman living in Mumbai's plush Pedder Road area, noted that despite multiple communications and representations made by him, his society was not permitting him to install a charging station in his society premises, for his electric car.

'Can Reform If Sent Back To His Books': Bombay HC Grants Bail To 'Young Adult' Booked For Assault, Allows Him To Complete Class 12 Studies

Case Title: Avinash Benewal vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 43

The Bombay High Court while granting bail to a 'young adult' booked for assaulting a man along with his 'gang members', noted that he was merely 18 years old at the time of the incident and that he was studying in Class 12 and therefore, granted him bail observing that "he will be reformed if he goes back to his books."

Justice Milind Jadhav said keeping the accused behind bars would only make him a 'hardened criminal' as he would see his peers progressing in life and he is in jail.