Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 337 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 351]Jaykumar B. Patil vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 337Sashidhar Jagdishan vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 338Aditya Ramchandra Patil vs Yuvraj Bhivaji Patil, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 339Commissioners of Customs (Export) v. Bank of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 340Narendra Bhuva vs...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 337 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 351]
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
Judgments/Final Orders:
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.
Other Developments:
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.