Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 17 – March 23, 2025

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

Judgments/Final Orders:

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.

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Alleging ₹16.6 Crore 'Fraudulent' Bank Guarantees In Twin Tunnel Project

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.

Setting Aside Of Arbitral Award Leaves It Open To Parties To Choose To Arbitrate Again: Bombay High Court

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”.

Failure To Follow Retrenchment Procedure, Employee Crossing Retirement Age, Bombay HC Directs Lumpsum Compensation

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.

"Farmers Cannot Be Made Debt-Ridden": Bombay High Court Quashes State Resolution Providing 'Delayed & Less' Fair Price To Sugarcane Farmers

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.

Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Bank Employee Who Was Booked For Fraud Of ₹46.58 Lakhs Even After She Returned Amount

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.

Labour Court Cannot Grant Monetary Relief Without Pre-existing Entitlement: Bombay HC Clarifies Scope Of Recovery Under Section 33C(2), Industrial Disputes Act

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.

Bombay HC Asks Family Court To Decide Mutual Divorce Plea Of Yuzvendra Chahal & Dhanashree Verma Tomorrow, Waives Cooling Off Period

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.

Bombay High Court Injuncts Owner Of Kapani Resorts From Alienating Any Interest In Properties Until Conclusion Of Arbitral Proceedings

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.

Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Nitin Gadkari's Election To 18th Lok Sabha From Nagpur; Imposes Costs On Petitioner

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.

Telling Woman Colleague That She Must Be Using JCB To Manage Her Hair Is Not Sexual Harassment: Bombay High Court

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.

Senior Citizens Act Can't Be Invoked By One Senior Citizen Against Another To Recover Possession Of Premises: Bombay High Court

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.

Other Orders/Observations:

Very Important Issue Raised & You Are Not Filing Reply: Bombay High Court To State In PIL Against Treatment Of Denotified Tribes As Criminals

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.

"Don't Deprive Children Of Education": Bombay HC Asks Defence Authorities To Let Students Pass Through Gates Of Naval Colony To Reach School

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.

Registration, Fixed Wages, Pakka Houses: State Accepts Before Bombay HC Suggestions To Improve Working Condition Of Migrant Sugarcane Workers

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.

Bhima-Koregaon Case: Anand Teltumbde Moves Bombay High Court For Permission To Travel Abroad On Academic Assignments

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.

After Bombay High Court Order, Family Court Dissolves Marriage of Yuzvendra Chahal & Dhanashree Verma

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.

Are You A Governing Body Without Teeth? Bombay High Court Asks BCCI Over Delay In Decision On Telangana Cricket Association's Membership

“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.