2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 123 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 169Nominal Index:Accelerate Productx Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 123Yash Charitable Trust vs. State Of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 124Lakhani's Blue Waves Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs The Chairman, CIDCO, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 125Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University Law School vs. State...
2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 123 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 169
Nominal Index:
Accelerate Productx Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 123
Yash Charitable Trust vs. State Of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 124
Lakhani's Blue Waves Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs The Chairman, CIDCO, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 125
Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University Law School vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 126
Ambit Urbanspace Versus Poddar Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 127
Shahbaz Mumtaz Khan vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 128
ST vs Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 129
Anil Ambani vs Deputy Director of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 130
Rohan Vishwas Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 131
Santanu Sengupta & Ors. Versus Macrotech Developers Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 132
Samarth Constructions vs Pushpa Mate, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 133
Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund Versus Neelkanth Realty Private Ltd. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 134
Anna Maruti Shinde vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 135
Bharat Ramji Thakkar vs Union Of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 136
Arun Hastimal Firodia v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 137
PV vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 138
Contract for Emergency Medical Services vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 139
Harshvardhan Navnath Khandekar vs State Of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 140
M/s. Mehta & Co. vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 141
Nivritti Pandurang Nale vs. Uttam Ganu Nale & Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 142
Tanaji Shivaji Solankar & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 143
Central Depositories Services (India) Limited. Vs. Ketan Lalit Shah and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 144
Ballam Trifla Singh vs. Gyan Prakash Shukla & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 145
Prof Dr. Nikhil D. Datar vs. State Of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 146
High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own Motion vs. MCGM and Anr & Access to Hope vs. Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 147
SJK Buildcon LLP vs. Kusum Pandurang Keni & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 148
Bholashankar Ramsuresh Dubey Versus Dinesh Narayan Tiwari and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 149
Brijesh Barot vs Registrar General, High Court, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 150
Elite Housing LLP Versus The Spectrum CHS Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 151
Al-Quraish Human Welfare Association & Ors vs. The State Of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 152
High Court On Its Own Motion vs Vineeta Srinandan, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 153
Arun Hastimal Firodia v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 154
Chetana Rajput v. Modern Education Society, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 155
Technova Imaging Systems Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 156
Sharmila Ghuge vs. University of Mumbai, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 157
Tata Capital Limited v. Vijay Devij Aiya, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 158
Tanveer Ahmed Patel vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 159
Cyril Ribeiro vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 160
Sheikh Ibrahim vs Sheikh Rehman, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 161
IMAX Corporation v. E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 162
Dr. V.N. Madhu vs. S.S. & L.S. Patkar-Varde College & ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 163
Sahil Gilani vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 164
Indiabulls Infraestate Ltd. Versus Imagine Realty Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 165
UTO Nederland B. V. & Anr. vs. Tilaknagar Industries Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 166
Sabina Lakdawala vs Feroze Lakdawala, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 167
Bramhanand Naikwadi vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 168
Abhijeet Bacche-Patil vs Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 169
Judgments/Final Orders:
Case Title: Accelerate Productx Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 123
While observing that the concept of '24x7' shops have become a popular one worldwide, the Bombay High Court permitted a convenience retail store in Pune to operate 24x7. The bench noted that State while recognising such advantages and to achieve progress commensurate with the global standards, has not imposed any kind of restrictions on the timings of such stores.
Case title: Yash Charitable Trust vs. State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 124
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the enactment of State Rules under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. During the hearing, the State counsel submitted that the Maharashtra State Rights Of Persons With Disability Rules, 2024, were framed by the State government by exercising power under Section 101 of the 2016 Act.
Case Title: Lakhani's Blue Waves Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs The Chairman, CIDCO
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 125
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently held that the citizens do not have a fundamental right to be cremated or buried at a specific place.
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata ordered the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) to remove a crematorium constructed nearby residential societies, shops, a school and a playground on a few plots in sector 9 of Navi Mumbai's Ulwe area.
Case title: Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University Law School vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 126
In a challenge to an inspection notice issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI), the Bombay High Court has held that the notice is valid and that the Rules of Legal Education 2008 framed by the BCI under which it can inspect law colleges is not ultra vires.
A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik observed that the Rules under which the BCI is empowered to inspect law colleges does not violate Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and noted that the impugned notice was neither arbitrary nor illegal.
Case Title: Ambit Urbanspace Versus Poddar Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 127
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that Eviction of tenants governed by the Rent Control Act cannot be sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), particularly when they are not parties to the Development Agreement executed between the Developer and the Landlords and are not being provided upgraded premises in the redeveloped building compared to what they currently occupy under the tenancy agreements.
Case title: Shahbaz Mumtaz Khan vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 128
The Bombay High Court has observed that a tender prescribing a condition that a younger candidate would be preferred over an older candidate in case of a tie-breaker is discriminatory and arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: ST vs Commissioner, Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 129
Even if a father has not seen the face of the child since its birth and is addicted to vices, does not give a right to the mother to become a single parent and mask the paternity of the child in its birth record, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held recently.
A division bench of Justices Mangesh Patil and Yanshivraj Khobragade said parents embroiled in matrimonial disputes, cannot claim right over the child's birth record, just to 'satisfy their egos.' The bench therefore, imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on a woman, who sought to remove her husband's name from their child's birth records.
Case Title: Anil Ambani vs Deputy Director of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 130
In a setback for industrialist Anil Ambani, the Bombay High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on him for seeking an urgent hearing of his petition challenging the April 2022 notice issued to him by the Income Tax Department.
A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain said it cannot consider the 'artificial urgency' made up by Ambani, who urged the judges to urgently hear his challenge to the show cause notice issued to him by the IT Department, way back in April 2022.
Case title: Rohan Vishwas Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 131
While upholding the discharge of an accused under the Maharashtra Black Magic Act, the Bombay High Court observed that the object of the Act is to curb harmful practices such as human sacrifice or fraudulent rituals and not legitimate religious practices.
Case Title: Santanu Sengupta & Ors. Versus Macrotech Developers Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 132
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan the developer of Lodha World Towers in a petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) has been directed to charge the Federation Common Area Maintenance (FCAM) Charges at the rate agreed upon in the agreement executed between the parties, until the arbitral proceedings are completed.
Case Title: Samarth Constructions vs Pushpa Mate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 133
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Friday emphasized on the purpose of Consumer Protection Act stating that the intent and framework of the legislation is to ensure that the "untrained, unwary" consumers are not deprived of their legal rights because of the 'unequal' bargaining power.
Case Title: Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund Versus Neelkanth Realty Private Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 134
The Bombay High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik has held that an arbitrator is not permitted to decide the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue without first recording a finding as to whether it is a mixed question of law and fact that requires evidence to be led.
Case Title: Anna Maruti Shinde vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 135
The Bombay High Court ordered SIT probe into five policemen allegedly involved in the Badlapur 'fake' encounter case.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale said that a refusal to investigate a crime undermines the Rule of Law, erodes public faith in justice, and allows perpetrators to go unpunished.
FIR Lodged & Investigation Underway: Bombay High Court Disposes PIL Alleging Mid-Day Meal Scam
Case title: Bharat Ramji Thakkar vs Union Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 136
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning an alleged scam in the distribution of food grains under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, noting that a First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged and an investigation is underway.
Case Title: Arun Hastimal Firodia v. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 137
A single judge bench of Justice Y. G. Khobragade upheld the issuance of criminal process against the Chairman of Kinetic Engineering Ltd., for failing to implement a Labor Court judgment. The court rejected the argument that a Chairman cannot be held responsible for compliance with court orders. The court clarified that persons in positions of control and supervision over an industrial establishment's affairs are obligated to implement court judgments even when appeals are pending without a stay order.
Case Title: PV vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 138
Once a marriage is legally registered and a couple establishes sexual relations, the husband cannot be booked for rape because he did not fulfill his 'promise to marry the wife as per religious customs', the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court, held recently.
Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL On Alleged Illegalities In Govt Tender For Supply Of Ambulances
Case title: Contract for Emergency Medical Services vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 139
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition concerning alleged illegalities in the state government tender process for the supply and operation of emergency medical services and ambulances.
Case title: Harshvardhan Navnath Khandekar vs State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 140
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that raised apprehension that the Maharashtra government would take coercive action against those who shared Kunal Kamra's comedy clip, where he made the "gaddar" comment purportedly against Maharashtra's Deputy CM Eknath Shinde.
Case Title: M/s. Mehta & Co. vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 141
The Bombay High Court recently imposed Rs 2 lakh costs on the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) for high-handedly demolishing a structure which was used to provide temporary shelter and food for the cancer patients taking treatment in the city's Tata Memorial Hospital.
Case title: Nivritti Pandurang Nale vs. Uttam Ganu Nale & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 142
The Bombay High Court has observed that mere registration of an adopted deed cannot give rise to a presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. It noted that the presumption under Section 16 is conditional upon the signing of the deed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption.
Case title: Tanaji Shivaji Solankar & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 143
The Bombay High Court has observed that causing injury by biting with human teeth constitutes 'voluntarily causing hurt' under Section 323 IPC rather than Section 324 IPC as human teeth cannot be considered as a 'weapon'.
Case Title: Central Depositories Services (India) Limited. Vs. Ketan Lalit Shah and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 144
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale has held that the arbitrator can allow the parties to withdraw their claims to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings by issuing a new notice of arbitration, provided that the legitimate interests of the other party are not prejudiced.
Case title: Ballam Trifla Singh vs. Gyan Prakash Shukla & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 145
The Bombay High Court has directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to hold an enquiry regarding the conduct of an advocate, who sought adjournment despite the case being listed for passing order. Remarking that the counsel acted as a “mouthpiece” of his client, Justice Madhav J. Jamdar observed that advocates' first duty is towards the court and that advocates are not the agents of their clients.
Case Title: Prof Dr. Nikhil D. Datar vs. State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 146
The Bombay High Court has disposed of a PIL that sought directions to ensure compliance with a Supreme Court order regarding a mechanism for enforcing 'living wills', taking into account the State government's submission that it has taken steps to comply with the Apex Court's directions. The PIL sought the proper implementation of the Supreme Court's directives on passive euthanasia in Common Cause v. Union of India (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 79).
Case title: High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own Motion vs. MCGM and Anr & Access to Hope vs. Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 147
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (April 17) asked has directed the State Advisory Board On Disability to expeditiously consider the grievances of differently abled people with respect to accessibility at bus stops. The PIL sought the implementation of the 'Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment, 2021' concerning bus stops and terminals in Mumbai.
Case Title: SJK Buildcon LLP vs. Kusum Pandurang Keni & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 148
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) cannot be invoked to circumvent the statutory protection afforded to tenants under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“Rent Act”). Interim measures under Section 9 must aid arbitral proceedings and cannot override or conflict with special statutory mechanisms under the Rent Act for eviction and redevelopment.
Case Title: Bholashankar Ramsuresh Dubey Versus Dinesh Narayan Tiwari and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 149
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice N. J. Jamadar has held that the dispute cannot be refused referral to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) based solely on mere allegations of fraud simpliciter, unless serious allegations of fraud that go to the root of the partnership deed containing the arbitration clause are established.
Case Title: Brijesh Barot vs Registrar General, High Court
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 150
The Bombay High Court recently took strong objection to an advocate accusing the judges of acting "hand in glove" with the respondent and therefore, recused from hearing the case. The judges also issued a show-cause notice for criminal contempt of court to the said advocate and further ordered the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) to conduct enquiry against the advocate.
Case Title: Elite Housing LLP Versus The Spectrum CHS Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 151
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that objections related to the terms of the redevelopment agreement raised by members of the society can be decided only by the appropriate forum having jurisdiction over such issues. These matters cannot be adjudicated under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case title: Al-Quraish Human Welfare Association & Ors vs. The State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 152
The Maharashtra Government informed the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (April 22) that it has constituted a committee headed by a former judge of the high court to lay down guidelines for the slaughter of animals which are 'not useful' for certain purposes provided under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act.
Bombay High Court Sentences Woman To One Week Prison For “Dog Mafia” Comment Against Judges
Case Title: High Court On Its Own Motion vs Vineeta Srinandan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 153
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday convicted a woman under charge of criminal contempt of court for calling the court "dog mafia" and making "objectionable" comments against the court and also the judges over their order in favour of dog feeders in a case pertaining to a dispute between a Navi Mumbai-based society and dog feeders.
Case Title: Arun Hastimal Firodia v. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 154
A single judge bench of Justice Y. G. Khobragade upheld the issuance of criminal process against the Chairman of Kinetic Engineering Ltd., for failing to implement a Labor Court judgment. The court rejected the argument that a Chairman cannot be held responsible for compliance with court orders. The court clarified that persons in positions of control and supervision over an industrial establishment's affairs are obligated to implement court judgments even when appeals are pending without a stay order.
Payment Of Gratuity Delayed Beyond One Month Of Retirement, Attracts 10% Interest: Bombay HC
Case Title: Chetana Rajput v. Modern Education Society
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 155
A division bench comprising of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe held that Nowrosjee Wadia College had to pay gratuity with 10% interest to a retired teacher, as their retirement benefits had been delayed without justification. The court held that educational institutions cannot withhold gratuity for more than one month, even if there are disputes over the pension calculation.
Case Title: Technova Imaging Systems Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 156
The Bombay High Court stated that amalgamated company can adjust written down of assets of amalgamating companies and claim depreciation without central government's approval.
Case title: Sharmila Ghuge vs. University of Mumbai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 157
The Bombay High Court on Thursday (April 24) disposed of a PIL that sought enforcement of mandatory attendance requirements among law students enrolled in various colleges affiliated with the Mumbai University. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik did so after noting that the PIL petitioner did not provide any details of the colleges where students are allowed to take examinations without complying with the mandatory attendance requirement.
Unilateral Option To Terminate Arbitration Agreement Does Not Render It Illegal: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Tata Capital Limited v. Vijay Devij Aiya
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 158
The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan while disposing an application for appointment of arbitrator has observed that an arbitration clause which gives option to only one party to opt out of the arbitration agreement is not invalid per se. Such arbitration agreement can be saved by eliminating the unilateral option or by making such right bilateral.
Only Triple Talaq Is Prohibited, Not Talaq-e-Ahsan: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Tanveer Ahmed Patel vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 159
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 23) held that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 only prohibits the instantaneous and irrevocable "Triple Talaq" also known as "Talaq-e-biddat" but does not prohibit the traditional mode of divorce under Islam known as "Talaq-e-Ahsan."
Case title: Cyril Ribeiro vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 160
The Bombay High Court has observed that a Government allottee who does not hold a 'legal occupation or possession' of a property under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 cannot be considered as a 'deemed tenant' under Section 27 of the Act.
Case Title: Sheikh Ibrahim vs Sheikh Rehman
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 161
A Muslim father, who transfers his property to his son as a gift known as 'Hiba' under the Islamic Law, can continue to reside in the said property along with his son and need not leave the said residence as the law does not mandate delivery of 'actual and physical' possession of the property other it only provides for 'constructive possession', the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held, recently.
Case Title: IMAX Corporation v. E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 162
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and M.M. Sathaye has observed that when a common arbitration petition seeking recognition, enforcement and execution of a foreign award is declined against all the respondents, the mere fact that some respondents had successfully filed chamber summons seeking deletion of their names would not render the appeal filed under Section 50(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as not maintainable.
Case Title: Dr. V.N. Madhu vs. S.S. & L.S. Patkar-Varde College & ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 163
A division bench consisting of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe dismissed a writ petition that prayed for the counting of earlier service in pension calculations. The court held that any reappointment made after terminating the previous service cannot be linked to the earlier service period. The court explained that if previous service was terminated, the reappointment made after proper selection process is considered afresh for pension calculations.
Religion Is One Consideration In Custody Matter But Welfare Of Child Paramount: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sahil Gilani vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 164
The Bombay High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by the second husband of popular fashion entrepreneur and social media influencer Pernia Qureshi, who sought the custody of their three year old daughter. A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shriram Modak reiterated that though religion is one of the considerations in child custody matters, yet the welfare of the child is always paramount.
Case Title: Indiabulls Infraestate Ltd. Versus Imagine Realty Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 165
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that even though the term "substitution" is mentioned under Section 29-A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), an arbitrator cannot be substituted in an application under this section unless the grounds specified in Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration Act are satisfied, which outline the conditions under which an arbitrator may be substituted.
Case title: UTO Nederland B. V. & Anr. vs. Tilaknagar Industries Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 166
The Bombay High Court has observed that an order of temporary injunction is not a prima facie adjudication on the subject matter or merits of the case, but an exercise of discretion by the court. The Court did so while answering a reference between conflicting decisions of division benches of the high court in Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr vs. Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd (2005) and Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd. vs. Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad (2012) as well as Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. vs. Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors (2014).
Case Title: Sabina Lakdawala vs Feroze Lakdawala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 167
The Bombay High Court ordered the Mumbai Police to conduct an enquiry into the conduct of an advocate, who called the wife of a sitting judge for a property dealing and insisting on "cash transaction." Single-judge Justice Madhav Jamdar in his jam-packed court hall, disclosed that an attempt was being made to "frame the court" after it passed an order against advocate Vijay Kurle on April 9, for his misconduct in the court.
Case Title: Bramhanand Naikwadi vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 168
The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash a letter issued by a Sessions Court in Beed district to the Director General of Police (DGP), Maharashtra to frame 'Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for police officials to maintain decorum in the court while recording evidence through video conferencing facility. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale dismissed the petition filed by Bramhanand Naikwadi, the Senior Police Inspector at Nerul Police Station in Navi Mumbai, who while recording his testimony in a criminal case through VC (on his mobile phone) kept muting his mic, spoke to people around him and on being 'admonished' he 'laughed' at the judge.
Bar Associations Are Not "State" Under Article 12 Of The Constitution Of India: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Abhijeet Bacche-Patil vs Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 169
Bar Associations if held to be a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it would certainly lead to a "chaotic" situation, the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna dismissed the petition filed by four advocates challenging the notice issued by the Kolhapur District Bar Association (KDBA), by which it asked its members to pay their membership fees by April 1, 2025, else they would not be eligible for casting votes in the upcoming bar elections.
Other Orders/Observations:
While hearing the plea of a woman, who has accused Maharashtra and Telangana governments, Congress Party and other political parties' of 'unauthorisedly' using her photographs in advertising their different schemes, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday prima facie held that these parties or the governments are not at fault and instead, the 'blunder' is done by the photographer, who clicked the woman's photos and uploaded it on US-based platform 'Shutterstock' without her prior permission.
In relation to a suo motu PIL concerning the inaccessibility of footpaths to differently abled persons in Mumbai owing to bollards, the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) informed the High Court that it has removed all bollards from the entrance of footpaths.
The Bombay High Court expressed displeasure at the Central and State governments for stalling the petition filed by gangster Abu Salem–one of the prime convicts in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts case–seeking remission and premature release from the prison at Taloja, where he is serving his life sentence for his role in the case.
In a plea seeking a ban on plastic flowers in Maharashtra, the Central Government told the Bombay High Court that there is no restriction on the usage of plastic flowers and that they are not prohibited as single use plastic items.
In a petition concerning the situation of Homes for Mentally Challenged Children in Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court directed the State government to file a detailed affidavit indicating the number of such Homes in the State and the steps taken to revive the functions of such homes among other things.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Thursday told the Bombay High Court that Dalit rights' activist Dr Anand Teltumbde is an active member of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) (CPI-M), and is allegedly involved in activities that pose a 'threat' to the 'sovereignty, security and integrity' of India and thus he should not be permitted to travel to Amsterdam and the United Kingdom to attend academic assignments.
Booked In Section 498A Case, Actor Hansika Motwani Moves Bombay High Court For Quashing FIR
The Bombay High Court on Thursday issued notice on a petition filed by actor Hansika Motwani and her mother Jyoti Motwani, by which the duo have sought to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against them on charges of cruelty under section section 498-A, at the behest of her sister-in-law Muskan James.
In a petition challenging the proposal to set up a Municipal Solid Waste Treatment & Disposal site at a land adjacent to a school, the Bombay High Court orally remarked that it would not permit a dumping ground to be set up near the school. The Court was hearing 2011 petitions filed by a school and village panchayat of Awalkheda village in Taluka Igatpuri of Nashik District.
The Bombay High Court recently ordered the Deputy Collector of Mumbai to decide an application filed by a septuagenarian 'Stateless' woman, who has sought Indian Citizenship after spending 60 years in the country.
The Bombay High Court recently asked the Maharashtra government to spell out the steps taken to sensitise medical health providers across the State on the 'insensitive, inhuman and discriminatory' nature of the 'two-fingers test' or the 'virginity test' on survivors of sexual assault or rape.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (April 8) asked State to get instructions on comedian Kunal Kamra's plea for quashing an FIR lodged against him following his satirical video and "gaddar" comment purportedly made against Maharashtra's Deputy CM Eknath Shinde.
The Bombay High Court has agreed to hear an appeal against a single judge's order that restrained the release of the film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar”. On 13 June 2024, the Court had restrained the release of the film and any promotional material finding a strong prima facie case that the makers made unauthorised use of filmmaker Karan Johar's name and personality.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday ordered YouTube and Marathi news channel - ABP Majha, to remove a 'scandalous' video of advocate Nilesh Ojha, who made 'defamatory' allegations against sitting judges of the High Court.
The Bombay High Court has granted ex-parte ad-interim in favour of Hindustan Unilever, against infringement of its trademark and copyrights in its 'Closeup' and 'Pepsodent' toothpastes, by unknown persons selling counterfeit products.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay High Court seeking 'Carrying Capacity Survey' for the city of Mumbai to address the address conflict between urban development and environmental sustainability.
The Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) on Tuesday offered an "unconditional apology" to the Bombay High Court for defying the orders of the Supreme Court in Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, and demolishing the alleged illegal portions of the houses of the accused in the recent communal violence case. The NMC filed its affidavit before a division bench led by Justice Nitin Sambre, stating that it was unaware of the Supreme Court's ruling as neither the Maharashtra government nor the Nagpur civic body has issued the mandatory guidelines as directed by the Supreme Court.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 16) granted interim protection from arrest to comedian Kunal Kamra in his plea for quashing an FIR lodged against him following his satirical video and "gaddar" comment purportedly made against Maharashtra's Deputy CM Eknath Shinde.
Observing that no citizen must suffer at the airports, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday constituted a three-member expert committee under chairmanship of former Andhra Pradesh High Court judge - Justice (retd) Goda Raghuram to look into the issue of non-availability of wheelchairs and other facilities for senior citizens, physically disabled citizens and even for children and women.
The Director General of Police (DGP) Maharashtra has submitted an affidavit before the Bombay High Court that the police authorities have undertaken initiatives and campaigns regarding illegal loudspeakers and noise pollution, in relation to a contempt petition alleging 2940 illegal loudspeakers in the State.
Businessman Raj Kundra Moves Bombay High Court For Quashing Of LOC In Pornographic Film Racket Case
Celebrity and Businessman Raj Kundra has approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the "Look Out Circular" issued against him for his alleged role in the pornographic film racket case.
While permitting withdrawal of a PIL seeking funds to compensate wrongly incarcerated persons, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 23) orally remarked that in the absence of statutory backing, it cannot issue guidelines to the union or state government under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday ordered the Maharashtra Government to put up the State's Prison Manual and also Police online so as to help prisoners and their relatives learn more about their rights, while in jail.
The Bombay High Court on April 25 directed the Mumbai Police to not arrest comedian Kunal Kamra in the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him, following his satirical video and "gaddar" comment purportedly made against Maharashtra's Deputy CM Eknath Shinde.
The Bombay High Court rapped the Maharashtra Police for failing to transfer the investigation in the Badlapur 'Fake' Encounter case to an SIT formed by the High Court on April 7. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale remarked that the act of the State Police of not transferring the case despite clear orders amounts to 'brazen violation' of its orders and also constitutes criminal contempt of court.
While hearing a PIL seeking action against illegal parking near a railway station, the Bombay High Court asked the petitioners whether they would visit the station between 10 am and 5 pm to "create awareness" on the issue. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik remarked that 'public spirited persons' should provide a remedy to the problem, instead of just making complaints and pointing fingers at authorities.
The Bombay High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe And Justice M. S. Karnik has upheld the order passed by the Single Judge under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), injuncting the owner of the Kailash property and Kapani Resorts from alienating or disposing of any interest in the properties until the completion of the arbitral proceedings.
Finding that the Petitioner had failed to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment of tax, the Bombay High Court ruled that the circuitous movement of funds through various companies located in tax havens had not been disclosed in the course of the original proceedings. The High Court therefore confirmed the reopening proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
Have Taken Steps To Install Pollution Indicators At Construction Sites: BMC To Bombay High Court
The Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) today told the Bombay High Court that it has initiated steps for the installation of 'pollution indicators', which are used to check the amount of dust generated by construction works. The BMC made this submission before a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M. S. Karnik in a suo moto PIL on poor air quality in Mumbai.
Bombay High Court Rejects Shiv Sena MLA's PIL On Misuse Of Social Media By Influencers, Comedians
The Bombay High Court today refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a sitting MLA, Kiran Samant, concerning 'misuse' of social media by influencers, content creators and comedians. A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M. S. Karnik observed that an efficacious remedy is available under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009, to block access to information. The Court noted that the PIL has a general prayer of curbing the misuse of digital platforms by influencers, public personalities and comedians, and relief on such general prayer could not be granted.
Colaba residents have approached the Bombay High Court against the proposed construction of a passenger jetty and terminal facilities near the Gateway of India. Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA), an association of over 400 residents of Colaba, filed the petition against the proposed 'Passenger jetty and Terminal Facilities' construction by the State government and the Maharashtra Maritime Board.
After dragging it's feet over lodging of an FIR in the Badlapur Fake Encounter Case, the Maharashtra Police on Wednesday told the Bombay High Court that it will be lodging an FIR in the case, latest by Saturday (May 3). A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale accepted the statement made by Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar who told the judges that by Saturday an FIR would be lodged in the encounter case.
The Bombay High Court on Friday asked former Delhi University Professor Hany Babu, an accused in the Bhima-Koregaon Elgar Parishad case, to seek clarification from the Supreme Court as to whether he should be approaching the HC or the Special Court for afresh bail. This comes while the bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata commenced hearing Babu's appeal challenging an order passed by the Special NIA court in February 2022, denying him bail.