Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 214 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 230]Chief Executive Officer vs Ganesh Gulabrao Nawale, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 214Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 215Bank of India vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-15, Mumbai, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 216Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner of...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 214 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 230]
Chief Executive Officer vs Ganesh Gulabrao Nawale, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 214
Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 215
Bank of India vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-15, Mumbai, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 216
Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax Nodal 1 Raigad Division, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 217
Purple Products Private Limited vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 218
Dr Subhash Ramrao Bhamre vs Election Commission of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 219
Ambadas Chandrakant Aaretta vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 220
SDA vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 221
Board of Control for Cricket in India vs Kochi Cricket Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 222
Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 223
Fcbulka Advertising Pvt Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(1), 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 224
M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 225
NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 226
NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 226 (Same Judgment)
Chetan Kisan Patil vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 227
Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 228
XYZ Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Father vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 229
Chandiram Anandram Hemnani vs Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 230
Judgments & Final Orders:
Payment Of Gratuity Act Overrides Other State Pension Rules: Bombay HC
Case Title: Chief Executive Officer vs Ganesh Gulabrao Nawale
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 214
Bombay High Court: A single judge bench of justice MS Jawalkar held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('Act'), prevails over the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 ('MCS Rules'), unless a specific exemption is provided under Section 5 of the Act. The court clarified that the mere pendency of proceedings or any minor punishment under the latter, cannot justify withholding gratuity under Section 4(6) of the Act.
Case Title: Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha vs The Registrar of Trade Marks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 215
The Bombay High Court stated that the Registrar of Trademarks must give a reasoned order for pre-acceptance advertisement. Justice Manish Pitale observed that “The Registrar is required to pass a reasoned order as to why a mark is being advertised after acceptance and also a reasoned order as to why a mark is being advertised before acceptance. In fact, the Registrar has the option of directing advertisement of a mark before acceptance under proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act.”
Case Title: Bank of India vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-15, Mumbai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 216
The Bombay High Court held that the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee from RBI cannot be treated as 'interest' chargeable under Section 4 of Income Tax Act. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne stated that “the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee is not relatable in loan or advance given by the assessee to the RBI and therefore, the amount of subsidy can neither be treated as commitment charges nor discount on promissory notes on bill of exchange drawn or made in India.”
Case Title: Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax Nodal 1 Raigad Division
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 217
The Bombay High Court stated that cash credit account cannot be treated as property of account holder which can be consider under Section 83 of GST Act. The Division Bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the phrase 'including bank account' following the phrase, “any property” would mean a non-cash-credit bank account. Therefore, a “cash credit account” would not be governed by Section 83 of the MGST Act.
Case Title: Purple Products Private Limited vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 218
The Bombay High Court stated that treaty provisions don't override customs law and upheld the show cause notices issued for alleged misuse of import exemptions. The Bench consists of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that based on a treaty provision that is not transformed or incorporated into the national law or statute, the provisions of the existing Customs Act cannot be undermined, or the powers and jurisdiction of the customs authorities questioned.
Case Title: Dr Subhash Ramrao Bhamre vs Election Commission of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 219
Merely because names of dead persons continue to be on the voters list it cannot be presumed that votes have been cast in the name of these dead persons, held the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently while upholding the election of Congress MP Shobha Bacchav from Dhule constituency to the 18th Lok Sabha elections. Single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar dismissed the election petition filed by one Subhash Bhamre, a candidate of Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), who lost to Bacchav.
Case Title: Ambadas Chandrakant Aaretta vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 220
The Bombay High Court recently refused to commute the conviction of a man from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder after noting that the convict acted in a 'cruel' manner by setting his wife ablaze and further not letting anyone to help her. A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shyam Chandak said the convict Ambadas Aaretta acted in a cruel manner and took advantage of the 'vulnerability' of his own wife and children.
Case Title: SDA vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 221
While quashing an FIR lodged against seven members of a family, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court bemoaned the misuse of section 498A at the hands of women by roping in all the family members of the husband in criminal cases only to settle their personal scores. A division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Pravin Patil expressed concern over such a tendency of women implicating all the family members of a husband in criminal cases.
Case Title: Board of Control for Cricket in India vs Kochi Cricket Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 222
The Bombay High Court has upheld an arbitral award granting damages amounting to 538.9 crore to Kochi Cricket Private Limited ("KCPL”), the parent company of defunct IPL franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala. It was held that the Court cannot act as a Court of First Appeal and delve into a fact-finding exercise by revisiting and re-appreciating the record and accepting competing interpretations of the various clauses of the agreements between the parties by invoking the ground of perversity.
Case Title: Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 223
The Bombay High Court has asked the Commissioner of Income Tax to decide whether payment for transponder services constitutes 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(Vi) of Income Tax Act. The Division Bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “the authorities have held the payment to constitute 'royalty' under the domestic law as well as under the Treaty, but by holding the said payment is towards 'royalty' under the Treaty, the revenue has relied upon the definition of 'process' under the domestic law. Therefore, to say that the revenue has only held against the Assessee on the ground of domestic law and not the Treaty is not correct.”
Case Title: Fcbulka Advertising Pvt Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(1)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 224
The Bombay High Court stated that a breach of Article 265 of the constitution cannot be alleged or sustained based upon a tentative or inconclusive opinion formed by assessing officer. The Division Bench consists of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “If the communication dated 29 November 2018 is an order, it being like a preliminary, prima facie, or interlocutory order and not a final order, the Petitioner cannot base their claim on this communication to allege breach of Article 265 of the Constitution. The communication dated 29 November 2018 is based on preliminary verification and is subject to processing, and therefore, it is in the nature of a preliminary/prima facie/interlocutory order.”
Case Title: M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 225
The Bombay High Court stated that assessing officer do not have the jurisdiction to go behind net profit in profit and loss account except as per explanation to Section 115J Of Income Tax Act. The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Makarand Karnik observed that “Section 115J of the 1961 Act mandates that in case of a company whose total income as computed under the provisions of the Act 1961 is less than 30% of the book profit, the total income chargeable to tax will be 30% of the book profit, as shown in the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the provisions of Part II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act 1956, after certain adjustments.”
Case Title: NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 226
In a city where inequality is visible in how space and services are distributed, providing formal housing to slum dwellers within the city and not on its outskirts, is a step towards real equality, the Bombay High Court held on Thursday while refusing to strike down Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, (DCPR) 2034, which provides for rehabilitation of slum dwellers on lands encroached, which are reserved as 'open spaces' under the DCPR 2034.
Case Title: Chetan Kisan Patil vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 227
The Bombay High Court recently held that a person seeking bail on grounds of parity cannot be denied relief merely because the State is contemplating to challenge the order of bail granted to co-accused and therefore, asked the Maharashtra Law and Judiciary Department to ensure that it approves the proposal for filing appeal against an order, within two weeks. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar said the mere intention or contemplation to file an appeal against a bail order does not automatically dilute the legal effect or binding nature of such order unless and until it is stayed, modified, or set aside by a higher forum.
Case Title: Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 228
The Bombay High Court stated that design and engineering services to foreign entities are zero-rated supplies; assessee eligible for refund of unutilized ITC U/S 54 CGST. The Division Bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla observed that assessee is not an agency of the foreign recipient and both are independent and distinct persons. Thus, condition (v) of Section 2(6) is fully satisfied in the case. The assessee is eligible for refund of unutilized ITC on account of zero-rated supplies in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act and the same shall be granted to them along with statutory interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act.
Case Title: XYZ Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Father vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 229
Observing that it cannot force a rape victim to carry her 'unwanted' pregnancy, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently allowed a minor girl to abort her nearly 29 weeks foetus under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Sachin Deshmukh said by forcing he girl to continue with the pregnancy, the State would be 'stripping' her of the right to determine the path of her life.
Case Title: NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 226
In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court while observing that the Constitution of India is a 'living framework' held that the people living in slums or informal settlements are protected by the Constitution. The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034, which provides for rehabilitation of slum dwellers on lands encroached, which are reserved as 'open spaces' under the DCPR 2034.
Case Title: Chandiram Anandram Hemnani vs Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 230
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has recently held that if a son and his wife are permitted by his parents to stay in the house owned by them, it would not confer any right in their favour and they cannot compel the old parents to allow them to reside in the said house, against their (old parents') desire. Single-judge Justice Prafulla Khubalkar said if there is some hostile relations between the son and his wife, the wife cannot claim any right to then stay in the house owned by her parents-in-law.
Other Developments:
The Bombay High Court on Monday said the Maharashtra Government and its officials must be 'ashamed' of themselves for not being able to point out even after 11 years that whether they have taken any action against the officials of the Children's Aide Society (CAS) and the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) over a 'shocking' New Years Party in December 2012, wherein 20 mentally disabled girls were made to dance along with 'scantily-clad' dancers in a home meant for children with mental deficiency.
The Bombay High Court recently accepted the statement made by a housing society in Mumbai that it will remove bouncers, allegedly appointed for harassing members of the society, who fed street dogs in the society premises. A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Arif Doctor noted that by detailed orders passed on March 27 and March 28, 2023 and April 24, 2023, the society's committee was clearly directed not to take coercive measures against society members, who feed street dogs.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday suggested that the Central Railways consider installing automatic closed doors in Mumbai local trains to prevent commuters from falling off and dying, a tragic occurrence the Court described as "alarming." The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne was hearing a public interest litigation concerning the recurring deaths of railway passengers due to overcrowding and falls from moving trains. The Court took note of a grim incident on June 9, when 13 passengers fell from a moving local near Mumbra in Thane district, resulting in the death of four and injuries to nine others.