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,...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 316 To 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 355
State of Maharashtra v Sanjay, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 316
Shankar Govindrao Lang vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 317
Salim Baig vs Sayyad Nawid, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 318
Krishnagopal B. Nangpal vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range – 3, Pune, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 319
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar vs Sandip Madhav Khase, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 320
Pune Municipal Corporation vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 321
Sumanbai vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 322
Sachin Malpani vs Nilam Patil, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 323
FICCI vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 324
Sarva Shramik Sangh vs The Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 325
Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 326
Shivshankar vs Sanjay, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 327
Jayesh Bandu Limie vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 328
Babu Abdul Ruf Sarkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 329
Shashikant Vitthal Kothawade vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 330
Ashwini Trading Co. vs Housing Bank Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 331
Sarfaraz Sayyad vs State of Goa, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 332
Siddharth Iswar Motghare vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 333
Zulferkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 334
The Commissioner of Sales Tax vs M/s. Associated Cement Company Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 335
Kalpesh Rajendra Jain vs Pramod Gaurishankar Todi, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 336
Jaykumar B. Patil vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 337
Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 338
Aditya Ramchandra Patil vs Yuvraj Bhivaji Patil, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 339
Commissioners of Customs (Export) v. Bank of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 340
Narendra Bhuva vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 341
M/s. Eagle Security & Personnel Services vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 342
Sony Mony Electronics Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 343
Deepak Babasaheb Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 344
Ganesh Kumar Yadav vs Captain R Tamil Selvan, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 345
Arcee Electronics vs Arceeika, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 346
Sunil vs Star India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 347
Dnyaneshwar vs Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 348
Bhanuchandra J Doshi vs Ms Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 349
Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sangathana vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 350
The North Goa (Non-Gazetted) Judicial Court Employees Association vs State of Goa, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 351
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Vinod Anandrao Parate, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 352
JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. vs Amarlal Parashramji Sharma, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 353
Sateri Builders & Developers LLP vs Minister of State, Home (Rural) Housing School Education Co-operative Mining Department, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 354
Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Raigad, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 355
Judgments/Final Orders:
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v Sanjay
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 316
The 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.
Case Title: Shankar Govindrao Lang vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 317
The 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.
Case Title: Salim Baig vs Sayyad Nawid
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 318
The 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 restraining him from disturbing the respondent's alleged possession over the suit property.
Case Title: Krishnagopal B. Nangpal vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range – 3, Pune
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 319
The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of one residential house, used for purchase of multiple residential houses, would qualify for exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act. The issue before the bench was whether Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act allows the Assessee to set off the purchase cost of more than one residential units against the capital gains earned from sale of a single residential house.
Case Title: Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar vs Sandip Madhav Khase
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 320
The Bombay High Court has held that trial courts have no jurisdiction to dispense with the statutory notice requirement under Section 280 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act and Section 180 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, unlike Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides a limited discretion. It held that non-compliance with these mandatory provisions renders the suit non-maintainable.
Case Title: Pune Municipal Corporation vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 321
The Bombay High Court held that Section 194C and Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act would not apply when TDR Certificates are issued in lieu of compensation. A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla agreed with the assessee that the words “or by any other mode” appearing in Section 194C would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft”. Similarly, in Section 194LA, the words “or by any other mode” would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft."
Case Title: Sumanbai vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 322
The Bombay High Court has held that an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is maintainable even if the claimant had previously filed a reference under Section 18, provided that the said reference was not decided on merits. The Court ruled that a dismissal of a reference on technical grounds, without adjudication, does not bar the landowner from seeking re-determination under Section 28-A.
Case Title: Sachin Malpani vs Nilam Patil
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 323
The Bombay High Court has held that apartment owners in a condominium must pay maintenance charges for common areas in proportion to their undivided interest, as required under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. It ruled that this statutory requirement cannot be modified or overridden by resolutions passed by the association of apartment owners seeking to impose equal charges irrespective of unit size.
Case Title: FICCI vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 324
The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the seventh proviso inserted into Section 2(b) of the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act, which brings within its ambit the additional amount charged by cinema proprietors for online booking of movie tickets. It observed that the activity of online booking is not different from an offline booking and can be taxed under Entry 62 of List II
Case Title: Sarva Shramik Sangh vs The Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 325
The Bombay High Court has held that delay in adjudication of an industrial reference cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny just relief to workmen whose services were illegally terminated. The Court observed that when the delay is not attributable to the workmen and the termination is found to be in violation of law, reinstatement is the appropriate remedy.
Serving Order On Chartered Accountant Doesn't Count As Service On Assessee: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 326
The Bombay High Court held that serving order on chartered accountant doesn't count as service on assessee. The issue before the bench was whether the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal when served upon the Chartered Accountant is sufficient service and whether it can be construed as 'copy received by the assesse/applicant'. A bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta stated that the Chartered Accountant since is not also authorised specifically to accept copy of the order, cannot be said to be a recognised agent of the Assessee.
Case Title: Shivshankar vs Sanjay
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 327
The Bombay High Court has held that a claimant can restrict the claim amount while filing an appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to avail the benefit of lower court fees at the initial stage, without being compelled to pay court fees on the full amount claimed in the original proceedings. Single-judge Justice Shailesh Brahme was hearing an appeal filed challenging the award passed by the claims tribunal passed U/Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant had initially claimed Rs. 40 Lakhs as compensation for the accident, and was granted Rs. 5.5 Lakhs by the tribunal. Being aggrieved by the award and for the enhancement of compensation, he preferred an appeal, valuing the claim at Rs. 1,00,000/- for the purpose of Court fees.
Case Title: Jayesh Bandu Limie vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 328
A candidate's involvement in an activity associated with gambling certainly amounts to moral turpitude and writ courts cannot order an employer to consider such a person for public service, especially in judiciary, the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the petition filed by one Jayesh Limje, who challenged the decision of the administration of the City Civil Sessions Court, Mumbai which on June 9, struck off his name from the selection list and also cancelled his appointment to the post of 'Clerk-Typist.'
Case Title: Babu Abdul Ruf Sarkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 329
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court while denying bail to an alleged Bangladeshi national, held that merely having documents such as Aadhar Card, PAN Card or a Voter ID Card, does not make someone a citizen of India and in fact the concerned person must place on record the verification of these documents. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar denied bail to the Petitioner, who was booked by the Thane Police, last year, on the ground that he was a Bangladeshi national and that he misled the Indian authorities and obtained Aadhar Card, PAN Card and also a Voter ID Card, income tax records, gas and electricity connections, fraudulently.
Case Title: Shashikant Vitthal Kothawade vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 330
The Bombay High Court has dismissed with costs a petition filed by an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act seeking to set aside a 'no cross' order passed by the trial court, after he failed to cross-examine the prosecution's prime witness despite being given repeated opportunities over a span of five years. Single-judge Justice Kishore Sant was hearing the criminal writ, filed challenging the trial court's refusal to recall PW-2, the de facto complainant, after the accused failed to cross-examine him on three separate occasions, despite the court setting aside two prior no-cross orders and granting the same relief.
Case Title: Ashwini Trading Co. vs Housing Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 331
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) must be given a purposive interpretation to ensure that recovery proceedings by banks fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), even if the suit was not originally within its jurisdiction at the time of filing. The Court ruled that when a non-banking lender merges with a bank during the pendency of a recovery suit, the matter must be transferred to DRT, given Sections 17 and 18 of the RDB Act.
Case Title: Sarfaraz Sayyad vs State of Goa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 332
The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court while declaring 'illegal' the arrest of a sitting Councillor of a local body for being an alleged member of the Popular Front of India (PFI), recently held that the police cannot arrest a person under section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) merely on the apprehension that the said person may indulge in illegal activities in future and that there is a possibility of him breaching peace in the locality.
Case Title: Siddharth Iswar Motghare vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 333
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has held that a subsequent change in the elected body of a Grampanchayat does not, by itself, justify the cancellation of decisions or resolutions passed by its earlier body. Such an approach would undermine the stability of local administration and is contrary to the purpose of Panchayati Raj institutions. A division bench of Justice MS Jawalkar and Justice Pravin Patil was hearing a writ petition filed by Siddharth Iswar Motghare challenging the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha's order of December 22, 2023, which quashed the recruitment of a Peon in Grampanchayat Antargaon. The petitioner, appointed in June 2022 and later confirmed in February 2023, alleged that the cancellation was based on a misapplication of a Government Resolution meant for State Government employees, which is inapplicable to Grampanchayat employees.
Case Title: Zulferkar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 334
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has held that pendency of a trial under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act) is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to keep another trial in abeyance, and prolonged custody without progress in trial amounts to a violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Single-judge bench Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the Gondia Sessions Court's order refusing bail to Zulferkar @ Chotu, accused of murder and other offences under the IPC, Arms Act, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Bombay Police Act, in a case registered in 2012. The appellant, in custody since September 2020 following cancellation of his earlier bail for breach of conditions, sought release on the ground that not a single witness had been examined in nearly five years of incarceration.
No Sales Tax On HDPE Bags Used To Pack Cement When Sold Separately: Bombay High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Associated Cement Company Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 335
The Bombay High Court stated that no sales tax can be levied on HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) bags at cement rate when sold separately. Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain were addressing the issue of whether there is an express and independent contract on the sale of HDPE bags in which cement is packed. “HDPE bags used to pack the cement were a distinct commodity with its own identity and were classified separately. There was no chemical or physical change in the packing either at the time of packing or at the time of use of the contents. The packing is capable of being reused after the contents have been consumed; there was evidence of reuse or resale, which was not challenged by the revenue. The HDPE bags were used to pack the cement for ease of transportation and convenience…,” opined the bench.
Case Title: Kalpesh Rajendra Jain vs Pramod Gaurishankar Todi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 336
Justice Milind Jadhav of the Bombay High Court last week refused to recuse himself from hearing a set of writ petitions filed in 2016, in which the petitioner levelled serious allegations of corruption, bribery and bias against two sitting Judges of the HC, including Justice Jadhav himself. Dismissing an interim application seeking his recusal from the matters, Justice Jadhav also imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner for attempting to 'browbeat' the Court and indulge in 'forum shopping'.
Case Title: Jaykumar B. Patil vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 337
The Bombay High Court has held that where a company grants an advance to one of its shareholders and such advance is not demonstrated to have been utilised for the business of the company, the amount would be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court declined to interfere with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which had upheld the addition of such advances as a deemed dividend.
Case Title: Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 338
In an order granting relief to HDFC Bank's Managing Director, Sashidhar Jagdishan, the Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate issuing notice to him in a private complaint lodged against him at the behest of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. Notably, the complainant Trust runs the famous Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai. In its FIR, the Trust has accused Jagdishan of accepting a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore from erstwhile Trustee Chetan Mehta, for giving him financial advice and helping him to retain control over the Trust's governance. It further accused Jagdishan of interfering in its internal affairs by misusing his position as the head of the HDFC bank.
Case Title: Aditya Ramchandra Patil vs Yuvraj Bhivaji Patil
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 339
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court held that involvement of another vehicle for causing an accident is not necessary and a mere skidding or slipping of the motorcycle too can amount to an 'accident' making the victims entitled to compensation under Motor Vehicles Act. Noting that term accident was not defined under the Act and would include any sudden event harming a person, the high court granted compensation of Rs. 7,82,800 with @7.5% interest per annum to the kin of a woman who died in a road-accident after her saree got entangled in the chain of the motorcycle, due to which the motorcycle slipped on the road.
Case Title: Commissioners of Customs (Export) v. Bank of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 340
The Bombay High Court stated that expired bank guarantee can't be enforced post CIRP (corporate insolvency resolution process). A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that, “The argument that a personal guarantee survives the CIRP does not apply in the case because the guarantee had expired even before the CIRP. During the validity period of the guarantee, admittedly, no claim was lodged by the department. This petition was instituted almost 10 years after the guarantee expired, and that too by instituting a writ petition, probably realising that a suit would be barred by limitation.”
Case Title: Narendra Bhuva vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 341
The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of vintage car taxable unless the assessee proves that the car was used as a personal asset. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne stated that the capability of a car for personal use would not ipso facto lead to automatic presumption that every car would be personal effects for being excluded from capital assets of the Assessee.
Case Title: M/s. Eagle Security & Personnel Services vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 342
The Bombay High Court held that RCM notifications denying ITC credit to service providers are constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The bench opined that in case of RCM, the person receiving the services, i.e. the recipient pays the tax and can claim credit of the same. The provider of service is exempt from paying tax. Merely because persons covered by RCM cannot claim credit of ITC cannot be seen in a microscopic way to hold the notification and the provision as ultra vires.
Case Title: Sony Mony Electronics Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 343
The Bombay High Court has held that an order under Section 53A(1) of the Bombay/Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 must be passed within a period of six years from the date of issuance of the certificate of adjudication under Section 32. It ruled that merely initiating proceedings within six years is not enough, as the final order itself has to be made within that period.
Case Title: Deepak Babasaheb Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 344
The Bombay High Court has held that failure to examine the victim in a case of sexual assault, coupled with the omission to examine the police officer who recorded her statement, fatally undermines the prosecution's case and results in denial of a fair trial to the accused. The Court observed that such lapses strike at the root of the prosecution's case and violate the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21.
Bombay High Court Upholds Election Of BJP MLA Captain Tamil Selvan
Case Title: Ganesh Kumar Yadav vs Captain R Tamil Selvan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 345
The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 18) dismissed a petition challenging the election of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Captain R Tamil Selvan to the Maharashtra Assembly from the Sion-Koliwada constituency. Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav dismissed Congress candidate Ganesh Kumar Yadav's election petition for failing to establish how Selvan resorted to corrupt practices and how non-disclosure of his liabilities and government dues, 'materially' affected the elections.
Case Title: Arcee Electronics vs Arceeika
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 346
The Bombay High Court has held that the place of purchase of goods, and not the residence of the customer, is relevant for determining territorial jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court ruled that mere delivery of goods to customers residing within the Court's jurisdiction is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction when the actual purchases were made elsewhere.
Case Title: Sunil vs Star India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 347
The Bombay High Court has held that registration of a film title with a producers' association does not, by itself, create any enforceable exclusive right against third parties, and cannot be the basis for an injunction. The Court clarified that such registrations are only for internal regulation among members of the association and have no statutory authority under the Trade Marks Act or the Copyright Act.
Case Title: Dnyaneshwar vs Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 348
The Bombay High Court set aside the order of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, which had invalidated the caste claims of the petitioners belonging to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. The Court held that once the vigilance cell had admitted the validity of the pre-independence documents, the committee could not have mechanically directed a re-enquiry without recording reasons.
Case Title: Bhanuchandra J Doshi vs Ms Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 349
The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan while deciding a petition under Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) had an occasion to interpret Rule 13, National Stock Exchange (“NSE”) Byelaws. The Court held that Rule 13(b) which provided that arbitral award under the Rules must be rendered within three months from the date of entering upon reference was directory and not mandatory in nature.
Case Title: Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sangathana vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 350
The Bombay High Court has held that courts need not interfere in allotments of land made by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) merely because no public advertisement was issued or because the publicity was inadequate, so long as the action of the State is bona fide and in furtherance of a public purpose.
Case Title: The North Goa (Non-Gazetted) Judicial Court Employees Association vs State of Goa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 351
The Bombay High Court bench at Goa recently while directing the State government to extend the air conditioning facilities in the district courts for the supporting staff, held that the supporting staff like the stenographers, court clerks, court managers, bailiff, peon, nazir etc are the backbone of the judiciary. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta noted that in a new court complex at Merces, North Goa, such air conditioning facilities have already been arranged for the judicial officers, public prosecutors, lawyers (in the bar room) but the same facility has not been extended to the supporting staff, which is 452 in number.
Case Title: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Vinod Anandrao Parate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 352
The Bombay High Court has held that mere assertions of non-availability or non-traceability of documents, without filing a supporting affidavit, cannot constitute sufficient grounds for permitting secondary evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The Court upheld the decision of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) refusing to allow Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to lead secondary evidence.
Case Title: JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. vs Amarlal Parashramji Sharma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 353
The Bombay High Court has held that unless the main proceedings are maintainable in law, there is no question of condoning delay in filing them. The Court ruled that the Labour Court erred in condoning a delay of 333 days in filing a review application without first examining whether such a review was maintainable, as the Industrial Disputes Act does not confer any power of review upon the Labour Court.
Case Title: Sateri Builders & Developers LLP vs Minister of State, Home (Rural) Housing School Education Co-operative Mining Department
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 354
The Bombay High Court has expressed concern over repeated delays in the implementation of slum rehabilitation schemes and directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to ensure that projects are implemented expeditiously in accordance with the object of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The Court observed that any interference or obstruction in the statutory process defeats the very purpose of the scheme, which is meant to provide secure housing to slum dwellers.
Case Title: Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Raigad
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 355
The Bombay High Court held that interest on fixed deposits, TDS refund linked to business qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides tax incentives for businesses operating in certain sectors such as infrastructure, power, and telecommunications. A bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla stated that the placement of fixed deposits was imperative for the purpose of carrying on the eligible business of the assessee. The placement of fixed deposits is not for parking surplus funds which are lying idle. This is also demonstrated by the fact that the assessee had used these fixed deposits for purchasing cranes for the eligible business. There is a direct nexus between the fixed deposits and the eligible business of the assessee.
Other Developments:
The Bombay High Court has directed the Central Board of Film Certification to watch the film 'AJEY' based on a book written on the life of UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and take a reasoned decision on its release. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale were irked to note that despite making a statement on July 17 that it will take a decision as per norms on the film's certification, the CBFC did not watch the film and simply rejected the application of the makers.
The Bombay High Court on Monday said it would be preferable to ignore the Press Note issued by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M), which condemned the High Court over the observations it made while denying the party's plea to stage a protest against Israel's war in Gaza. Notably, on July 25, a division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad had said that speaking up for Gaza or Palestine isn't "patriotism" and instead the CPI (M) must take up issues which affects the citizens of India.
The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 4) referred to a larger bench to decide as to whether a Caste Scrutiny Committee (CSC) has powers to suo motu recall its own orders granting validity to caste certificates on the ground that it were vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Yanshivraj Khobragade after noting differing views of various division benches on this very point, opined that there was a need to 'authoritatively' settle this issue through a larger bench.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (August 5) expressed shock over the conduct of a Station House Officer (SHO) of Pune Police, who refused to lodge an FIR on the complaint of a Muslim family on the ground that an FIR was already lodged against the family in a road rage case by a Hindu family. The court thus ordered Pune's Commissioner of Police to take 'stringent' action against the concerned officer.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 6) ordered the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take instructions and file a reply in response to the petition filed by Ramesh Gaichor, one of the accused in the Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad case, who has sought temporary bail to visit his ailing father. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Rajesh Patil granted two weeks time to the NIA to file a reply.
The Bombay High Court was today informed that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has rejected the plea for certification by makers of a movie titled "Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi," based on a book written on the life of UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. During the hearing, it was submitted by the petitioners that the CEO of the CBFC had told the makers that they should go and meet Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and get an NOC from him, and the CBFC would certify their film. It was submitted that the chairman said he would help them get an appointment and meet the CM.
The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 11) ordered the Mumbai Police to specify its stand on the plea filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) to hold peaceful protests and call for a ceasefire in Palestine and condemn the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Notably, this is the second time when the CPI(M) has knocked the doors of the High Court seeking permission to protest the genocide in Gaza as in its earlier round of litigation, the party was criticised by the bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad for not taking up issues that affect the citizens of India and instead focusing on fights taking place, thousands of miles away. In fact, the bench had asked the party to 'be patriots' underlining that merely speaking up for Gaza is not 'patriotism.'
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (12 August) recorded the Mumbai Police's decision to allow the Communist Party of India (Marxist) to hold a peaceful protest to condemn the ongoing genocide in Gaza. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad accepted the statement made by the Mumbai Police that the protest would be held at Azad Maidan, a designated site for demonstrations in Mumbai.
While indicating that it will order the complainant to do cleaning and mopping work at one of the hospitals in Mumbai, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday closed for orders, the petition filed by Zee TV seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the channel for its new show titled 'Tum Se Tum Tak' which revolves around the love story of a nearly 46-year-old man and a 19-year-old girl.
The Bombay High Court has issued a notice to the Attorney General of India on a petition filed by a 'same sex couple' challenging the constitutional validity of Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax (IT) Act, which grants exemption from tax on gifts between heterosexual couples. A division bench Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla has sought to know the stance of the Union Government on the petition filed by Payio Ashiho and his partner Vivek Divan, both of whom have urged the bench to include 'same sex couples' in the proviso to section 56(2)(x), which provides exemptions to heterosexual couples.
The Jain Community told the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (August 20) that it was easier to convince Mughal Emperor Akbar to close down slaughter houses during Paryushan Parva however it is very difficult to convince the State Government and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to do the same. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne issued notice on a plea challenging BMC Commissioner's order closing slaughterhouses for only two days during Paryushan Parva which lasts for a whole week.
Observing that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) failed to follow the principles of natural justice, the Bombay High Court on Thursday said it will watch the film titled "Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi" and then decide the plea filed by the film's makers to certify the film for public exhibition. The film is inspired from the book 'The Monk Who Became Chief Minister' which is purportedly based on the life of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
Former Member of Parliament (MP) Rahul Shewale of the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction) has moved the Bombay High Court challenging the decision of a special court which refused to issue summons to a witness in an ongoing trial in the criminal defamation case he has filed against Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray and Rajya Sabha parliamentarian Sanjay Raut.
The Bombay High Court on Monday ordered Kannada actor Dhruva Sarja alias Dhruva Kumar to show his bonafides and deposit Rs. 3 crore, an amount which he received from filmmaker Raghavendra Hegde, who has accused the actor of duping him of over Rs 9 crore. Sarja faces a First Information Report (FIR) at the behest of Hegde, who has alleged that the Kannada actor had approached him requesting for a collaboration to which the filmmaker agreed and initially paid Rs 3 crore to the actor. Further Hegde claimed to have taken loans from various entities at higher interests from 2020 till lodging of the FIR, taking the total amount to Rs 43 crores.
The Bombay High Court has held that ex parte ad-interim relief can be granted in defamation suits where the impugned articles are prima facie false, reckless and malicious, and where issuing notice would defeat the very purpose of the relief sought. The Court found that continued publication of such material would cause serious and irreparable damage to the commercial reputation of the plaintiff.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (August 26) granted interim bail for 3 days to Ramesh Gaichor, one of the accused in the Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad case, enabling him to visit his ailing father in Pune. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Rajesh Patil ordered Gaichor's release on a surety of Rs. 25,000. He would be escorted by a police team, to be arranged by the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai as he is presently lodged in Taloja jail.
The Bombay High Court today ordered the Maharashtra Government to file an affidavit spelling out the steps undertaken to implement the January 19, 2023, Government Resolution (GR) by which bike taxis were prohibited from plying across the State. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne asked the State to file an affidavit listing down the steps taken to implement the January 2023 GR in letter and spirit.