Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 307 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 319]Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 307Amit Rama Zende vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 308Laxman Motiram Barai vs Hafiza Sheikh, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 309Javed Abdul Rahim Attar vs The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 310Farah Deeba...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 307 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 319]
Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 307
Amit Rama Zende vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 308
Laxman Motiram Barai vs Hafiza Sheikh, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 309
Javed Abdul Rahim Attar vs The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 310
Farah Deeba vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 311
Noberto Paulo Sebastiao Fernandes vs Pankaj Vithal Tan Volvoikar, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 312
Harkisandas Tulsidas Pabari vs Rajendra Anandrao Acharya, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 313
PVG vs VIG, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 314
NMM vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 315
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
Judgments/Final Orders
Case Title: Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 307
Merely attending seminars and participating in physical training like karate etc conducted by the Popular Front of India (PFI), will not attract provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) which penalise terrorist act, held the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently held while granting bail to three men booked for being active members of PFI. A division bench of Justices Nitin Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar More noted that an FIR was lodged on September 21, 2022, by the Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) against Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel, Abdul Hadi Abdul Rauf Momin and Shaikh Irfan Shaikh Salim Alias Irfan Milli, based on a secret information that on November 21, 2021 and in July 2022, some seminars and physical and arms trainings were organised for Muslim youths.
Case Title: Amit Rama Zende vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 308
An alleged consent given in an agreement to 'live' with a man for a year and give birth to his child for some consideration, is not a free consent as it is a form of surrogacy, which is banned in India, held the Bombay High Court while refusing to quash rape FIR against a man. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh rejected the argument of the applicant - Amit Rama Zende, who claimed that he had entered into an agreement with the victim in a question, who had joined as a house help at his place.
Case Title: Laxman Motiram Barai vs Hafiza Sheikh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 309
The Bombay High Court has held that in the absence of a reasonable and plausible explanation, inordinate delay in filing a restoration application cannot be condoned merely by imposing costs, and doing so would amount to disregarding accrued rights of the opposite party. Single-judge Justice Vrushali Joshi was hearing a civil revision application filed by the original defendant challenging the order of the District Judge, which had condoned a delay of 2325 days and allowed restoration of a civil appeal filed by the plaintiffs.
Case Title: Javed Abdul Rahim Attar vs The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 310
The Bombay High Court has held that it is the duty of a constitutional court to intervene and inquire into instances where state power is alleged to have been abused for extraneous considerations. It directed the constitution of a high-level committee to examine the issuance of 935 notices under Section 79-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, by the Executive Engineer(s) of the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, a statutory unit under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority.
Case Title: Farah Deeba vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 311
Sending a 'laughing emoji' to the celebrations of 'Operation Sindoor' in a WhatsApp group, putting a video status of Indian flag burning and that of Prime Minister sitting on a rocket, would attract offences of endangering sovereignty, integrity and unity of India and also promoting enmity between two groups, the Bombay High Court held on July 29.
Case Title: Noberto Paulo Sebastiao Fernandes vs Pankaj Vithal Tan Volvoikar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 312
The Bombay High Court has held that a Sessions Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot entertain applications or pass orders that alter the status quo regarding possession, particularly when the original proceedings pertain to maintenance of public order under Section 164 BNSS.
Case Title: Harkisandas Tulsidas Pabari vs Rajendra Anandrao Acharya
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 313
The Bombay High Court Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne, observed that a Section 34 Court can only remit back to the same Arbitration following the procedure for remand u/s 33 and 34(4). The act of the Appellant not issuing a notice u/s 21 of the A&C Act to the Respondent, and approaching the same Arbitration, who initiates Arbitral proceedings, results in the Arbitral Tribunal being devoid of jurisdiction.
Wife Accusing Husband Of Impotency In Divorce Proceedings Not Defamation: Bombay High Court
Case Title: PVG vs VIG
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 314
A wife in her divorce petition or FIR, stating that her husband is 'impotent' would not amount to defamation, the Bombay High Court held recently while quashing a defamation case against a woman, her brother and father. Single-judge Justice Shriram Modak held that a wife making an allegation that her husband is impotent and this has caused mental cruelty to her, is justified.
Husband's Friend Is Not His Relative, Can't Be Booked U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High Court
Case Title: NMM vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 315
A male friend of the husband is not his relative and thus cannot be booked under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), held the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently, while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man booked under the said offence. A division of Justices Anil Pansare and Mahendra Nerlikar noted that one of the applicants before it was the husband's friend, who was named by the complainant wife in her FIR against her husband and his parents.
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.
Other Developments:
Bombay High Court Rejects Sameer Wankhede's Father's Plea For Contempt Action Against Nawab Malik
The Bombay High Court earlier this month refused to initiate contempt of court proceedings against former Maharashtra minister and senior NCP leader Nawab Malik for allegedly making defamatory statements against former NCB officer Sameer Wankhede and his family. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain, while dismissing the contempt petition filed by Sameer's father Dhyandev, orally observed, "We have very broad shoulders, you too can have broad shoulders or you have the remedy to file defamation."
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.