Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 4 - August 10, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 320 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 326]

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

Judgments/Final Orders:

Trial Court Cannot Waive Notice Period For Filing Suit Against Authorities Under Zilla Parishads & Panchayat Samitis Act: Bombay High Court

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.

Income Tax | S.194C & S.194LA Would Not Apply When TDR Certificates Are Issued In Lieu Of Compensation: Bombay High Court

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."

[Land Acquisition Act] Reference Application Can Be Filed U/S 28A If Earlier Application U/S 18 Was Not Decided On Merits: Bombay High Court

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.

Maintenance Charges Under Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act Cannot Be Modified By Flat Owners' Resolution: Bombay High Court

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.

'No Distinction Between Online Movie Ticket Booking & Offline Ticket Booking For Entertainment Tax Purposes': Bombay High Court

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

'Delay In Deciding Reference Cannot Be Grounds To Deny Relief': Bombay High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Workers Terminated In 1995

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.

Other Developments:

Bombay High Court Refuses To Take Suo Motu Contempt Action Against CPI(M) For Statement Condemning Order On Gaza Protest Plea

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.

Can Caste Scrutiny Committees Suo Motu Recall Their Own Orders Validating Caste Certificates? Bombay High Court Larger Bench To Decide

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.

"Why Is Police Taking Sides?": Bombay HC Orders Action Against Cop For Refusing FIR By Muslim Family Allegedly Attacked Over Religious Identity

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.

Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad Case Accused Moves Bombay High Court, Seeks Interim Bail To Visit Ailing Father

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.

Bombay High Court Directs CBFC Not To Insist On Film Makers Getting NOC From Yogi Adityanath For Certification Of 'AJEY' Movie

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.