Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 281 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 298]Aarti Drugs Limited v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 281ARP vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 282M/s. Unique Integrated Transport & Management Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 283Victorinox India Pvt. Ltd. vs Gute Reise India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 281 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 298]
Aarti Drugs Limited v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 281
ARP vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 282
M/s. Unique Integrated Transport & Management Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 283
Victorinox India Pvt. Ltd. vs Gute Reise India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 284
Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 285
Sonu Nigam vs Sonu Nigam Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 286
Ningbo Aux Imp and Exp Co. Ltd. v. Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 287
Ajay Amarchand Chhabria & Anr. v. Amarchand Daulatram Chhabria (HUF), 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 288
M/s. Patil Roadlines & Ors. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 289
Saraswatibai Gangagoud Anantwar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 290
Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak, Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, Math (Karveer) Kolhapur vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 291
Anil Babura Baile vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 292
Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire vs PRADA Group, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 293
PAB vs ARB, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 294
Abdulkadir Lokhandwala vs Central Adoption Resource Authority, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 295
Parvati @ Swati vs Vyankat, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 296
Pranav Constructions Limited Versus Priyadarshini Co-operative Housing Society Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 297
Vedant vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 298
Judgments/Final Orders:
Courts Cannot Mandate Retrospective Correction Of Errors In Legislation: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Aarti Drugs Limited v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 281
The Bombay High Court has held that courts cannot issue writs directing the legislature to correct alleged “clerical errors” in enacted laws or to give retrospective effect to legislative changes. It held that even if a change in the customs tariff is perceived as corrective or clarificatory, granting retrospective effect to such changes falls exclusively within the legislative domain.
Case Title: ARP vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 282
The Bombay High Court recently while quashing a section 498A IPC case against a family observed that marital discords have now-a-days become a menace in the society and that because of the two persons fighting over petty issues, the concept of marriage, which is 'sacrosanct' for Hindus is suffering a setback. A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Mahendra Nerlikar noted the 'trend' of women filing FIR against as many relatives of the husband as possible and said thus there is a need to look at matrimonial discord matters from a 'different' angle.
Case Title: M/s. Unique Integrated Transport & Management Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 283
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the bar of res judicata under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) cannot be invoked for the first time in a final judgment without framing an issue or giving parties an opportunity to respond. It has set aside a single judge's judgment that dismissed a suit invoking res judicata at the decree stage without prior notice.
Case Title: Victorinox India Pvt. Ltd. vs Gute Reise India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 284
The Bombay High Court has directed Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. to immediately delist all Victorinox-branded products being sold by its former dealer, Gute Reise India Pvt. Ltd., in compliance with an arbitral tribunal's interim order. The Court held that online platforms must act swiftly to enforce tribunal directions. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing an urgent commercial arbitration petition filed by Victorinox India Pvt. Ltd., seeking enforcement of an interim order passed under Section 17 by an arbitral tribunal on July 9, 2025.
Case Title: Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 285
The Bombay High Court today dismissed the petitions filed by residents of Colaba, challenging the construction of a Jetty facility in South Mumbai, near Radio Club and adjacent to the iconic Taj Mahal Palace Hotel and near the Gateway of India. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne thus upheld the validity of the decision of the Maharashtra Government and the State's Maritime Board.
Case Title: Sonu Nigam vs Sonu Nigam Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 286
Observing that the right of the citizens to free speech is not an 'unbridled' one, the Bombay High Court last week, while protecting the 'privacy' of Bollywood playback singer Sonu Nigam, directed a lawyer not to use 'Sonu Nigam' as the display name of his account on social media platform X (formerly Twitter). Single-judge Justice Riyaz Chagla asked the lawyer from Bihar, to use his full name 'Sonu Nigam Singh' in his social media accounts in order to ensure that there is no confusion in the minds of the netizens about the the singer Sonu Nigam.
Case Title: Ningbo Aux Imp and Exp Co. Ltd. v. Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 287
The Bombay High Court has held that a foreign arbitral award cannot be enforced against a person who was not a party to the arbitration proceedings. It ruled that forcing such a person to disclose assets or face coercive enforcement would be without jurisdiction under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan passed the ruling while allowing two interim applications filed by Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) and its shareholder (Respondent No. 2) in a commercial enforcement petition filed by Ningbo Aux Imp and Exp Co. Ltd., seeking enforcement of a foreign award passed under an agreement dated October 23, 2020.
Party Cannot Be Compelled To Undergo Medical Examination To Facilitate Adversary In Proving Case: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ajay Amarchand Chhabria & Anr. v. Amarchand Daulatram Chhabria (HUF)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 288
The Bombay High Court has rejected a request to conduct a medical examination of the elderly woman defendant on the ground that the Court cannot direct a party to undergo a medical examination unless the Court finds it absolutely necessary to determine the core question in controversy. The Court held that when there are serious disputes and conflicting allegations over a defendant's mental condition and transactions involving her property, the Court should appoint a neutral officer as guardian ad litem instead of any interested party.
Case Title: M/s. Patil Roadlines & Ors. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 289
The Bombay High Court has upheld the validity of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.'s (BPCL) tender conditions that provide for reservations and concessions to Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) bidders in petroleum transport contracts, holding that affirmative action need not be restricted to public employment alone.
Case Title: Saraswatibai Gangagoud Anantwar vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 290
The Bombay High Court has held that the Collector has inherent power to review administrative orders even in the absence of an express statutory provision, so long as the decision relates to administrative, not quasi-judicial, functions. The Court upheld a 2013 order restoring the names of two partners in a country liquor licence, which had earlier been deleted after the death of the original licensee.
'Elephants' Right To Quality Life Prevails Over Its Use For Religious Customs': Bombay High Court
Case Title: Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak, Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, Math (Karveer) Kolhapur vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 291
In a conflict between the 'right to quality life' of an animal and the right of humans to use the animals, particularly elephants for religious rites, the former must be considered, held the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (July 16) while allowing the transport of an elephant - Mahadevi, from Maharashtra's Kolhapur district to an elephant sanctuary in Gujarat's Jamnagar district. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale rejected a petition filed by Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak, Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, Math (Karveer) Kolhapur - a Jain temple trust, which challenged the order of a High Power Committee (HPC) that had recommended transfer of - Radhe Krishna Elephant Welfare Trust (RKEWT) in Jamnagar.
Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Constitutionality Of UAPA, Sedition Offence
Case Title: Anil Babura Baile vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 292
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and also of the section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale while pronouncing their judgment today said, "The UAPA in its present form is constitutionally valid...Challenge fails."
Case Title: Anil Babura Baile vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 292
While upholding the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Bombay High Court on Thursday held that the Act can be construed to be 'deterrent' to the commission of unlawful activities, but by no stretch of imagination can it be equated with 'preventive detention.' A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale rejected the petition filed by one Anil Baburao Baile, an alleged witness in the Bhima-Koregaon Elgar Parishad case, who had challenged the constitutional validity of the UAPA on the ground that there is no declaration of the date of coming into the effect of the said Act and also that the word 'Prevention' used in it, implies that it is an act which provides for 'prevention' and not for any 'penal' actions.
Bombay High Court Rejects PIL Accusing Global Fashion Giant PRADA Of Copying "Kolhapuri Chappals"
Case Title: Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire vs PRADA Group
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 293
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (July 16) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a restraining order against global fashion giant PRADA from commercializing and using "toe ring sandals" which is alleged to be deceptively similar to the GI tagged "Kolhapuri Chappal" without authorisation.
Case Title: PAB vs ARB
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 294
The conduct of a wife refusing to have a physical relationship with her husband and accusing him of having an extra-marital affair, while insulting him in front of his friends, will amount to cruelty to the husband, the Bombay High Court held on Thursday. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale also said that the wife insulting the husband in front of his friends and ill-treating his employees will cause mental agony to the husband.
Case Title: Abdulkadir Lokhandwala vs Central Adoption Resource Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 295
The Bombay High Court has held that there is no provision under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 or the Adoption Regulations, 2022, that permits the adoption of a foreign national child by Indian relatives, unless the child is in need of care and protection or is a child in conflict with law. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale dismissed a writ petition filed by an Indian couple seeking permission to adopt their biological nephew, a four-year-old US citizen, who had been brought to India and was residing with them.
Case Title: Parvati @ Swati vs Vyankat
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 296
The Bombay High Court has held that after the father's death, the mother becomes the natural guardian of a minor and cannot be denied interim custody unless there is clear evidence that her guardianship would be detrimental to the welfare of the child. The Court set aside an order of the District Judge denying interim custody to the mother and directed that the child be handed over to her.
Case Title: Pranav Constructions Limited Versus Priyadarshini Co-operative Housing Society Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 297
The Bombay High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne held that a member of a society can be directed to vacate the premises occupied by them under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to ensure smooth redevelopment, if they act contrary to the terms of the Development Agreement. These Appeals have been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) challenging the order dated 20 June 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of Arbitration Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act without grant of any relief in favour of the Petitioner therein.
Case Title: Vedant vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 298
The Bombay High Court has held that pre-constitutional documentary evidence showing consistent entries of Scheduled Tribe status cannot be disregarded merely on the ground that the claimants fail to satisfy the affinity test. The Court quashed an order of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and directed it to issue validity certificates to Vedant Wankhade and his father, who claimed to belong to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.
Other Developments:
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (July 15) slammed social media influencer Vikas Phatak aka Hindustani Bhau seeking registration of FIR against Bollywood filmmaker Farah Khan for allegedly hurting sentiments of Hindus, orally questioning if he had filed the plea to garner publicity. The court further orally asked the petitioner to stop being so sensitive and told him not to burden the Court, which already has a heavy board, with such issues.
Bombay High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Against Rahul Gandhi Over Remarks On Savarkar
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (July 15) refused to entertain a PIL seeking directions to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to stop ignoring the contribution of right-wing leader Vinayak Savarkar to the freedom struggle. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed a similar petition filed by the same petitioner - Pankaj Phadnis who is stated to be the co-founder of Abhinav Bharat Congress.
Makers Of Film On Yogi Adityanath Move Bombay High Court Over Delay In Certification
The makers of the film "Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi" have moved the Bombay High Court against the 'arbitrary' and 'unexplained' delay on the part of the Centra Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in deciding its application for certification of the film, which is slated to release on August 1. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale issued notice on the plea filed by the makers - Samrat Cinematics India Pvt. Ltd. who seek a direction to the CBFC to decide on the film's certification as early as possible.
Bombay High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Against Bullock Cart Racing In Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) objecting to the bullock cart racing in Maharashtra on the ground that before the race, the animals are subjected to cruelty. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne noted that the issue has already been decided by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court by a judgment pronounced on May 18, 2023, wherein the apex court upheld laws allowing bullock cart racing in Maharashtra, Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and Kambala in Karnataka.
The Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC) on Thursday told the Bombay High Court that it will decide within two working days on a plea for certification by makers of a movie titled "Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi." The makers of the movie had approached the High Court seeking a direction to decide their application for certification as soon as possible. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale recorded the statement of senior counsel Abhay Khandeparkar for the CBFC that they will decide the application within two working days and closed the matter without making any observations on merits.
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently expressed shock over the fact that there were around 300 colleges across Maharashtra which did not have a single student but yet their staff are getting paid hefty salaries. A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Sachin Deshmukh took Suo Motu cognisance of the news item published on July 12, in the Times of India, which read, "No Students in 300 Maha Colleges, but staff pocket crores in salaries."