2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 122 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 134Nominal Index:Dabur India Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 122Accelerate 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...
2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 122 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 134
Nominal Index:
Dabur India Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 122
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
Judgments/Final Orders:
Case title: Dabur India Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 122
Dabur India Ltd submitted an affidavit before the Bombay High Court that it would no longer use 'anti-inflammatory', 'anti-bacterial' and 'analgesic' on its toothpastes, in view of an order by the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Government of Maharashtra.
A division bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna accepted Dabur's statement that it would remove the said labels. It stated that with effect from June 2025, the product ought not to be manufactured or sold with the said labels either on the box or on the products.
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.
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.