Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 360 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 368]Pravin Nathalal Parch vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 360Farooq Shaukat Bagwan vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 361TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Vinay Sah, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 362Amit Sunarlal Shahu vs Hare Madhav Electronics, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 363Sruti Vijaykumar vs Falgun Yogendra...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 360 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 368]
Pravin Nathalal Parch vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 360
Farooq Shaukat Bagwan vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 361
TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Vinay Sah, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 362
Amit Sunarlal Shahu vs Hare Madhav Electronics, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 363
Sruti Vijaykumar vs Falgun Yogendra Shroff, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 364
M/s Provident Housing Ltd. vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 365
Rajiv Ranjan Singh vs Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 366
Vishal Bhanudas Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 367
Milind Satish Sawant vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 368
Judgments/Final Orders:
Case Title: Pravin Nathalal Parch vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 360
A child's custody cannot be given to his grandparents just because there is an emotional attachment and the same does not confer any 'superior' right to custody over that of the biological parents, the Bombay High Court held on September 4 (Thursday) while allowing a father's habeas corpus plea to get the custody of his son. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad noted that the petitioner couple was blessed with twin boys on November 12, 2019 and since the father (of the twins) replaced his own father in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) after the latter's retirement, the family agreed to keep one of the twins with the grandparents and one with the biological parents.
Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Accused In 2012 Pune Serial Blasts Case
Case Title: Farooq Shaukat Bagwan vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 361
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 9) granted bail to one of the accused in the 2012 serial bomb blasts case in Pune on the ground of delayed trial. Five low intensity explosions took place in Pune City on the evening of August 1, 2012, in which one person was injured. Apart from five bomb blasts, one live bomb was found in the carrier basket of Hero Street Ranger black colour bicycle, parked outside a busy area outside a shop in Pune. The same was defused by the Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad, Pune.
Ambiguous Terms Of An Insurance Policy Must Be Interpreted To Favour The Insured: Bombay High Court
Case Title: TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Vinay Sah
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 362
The Bombay High Court has held that in cases of ambiguity in an insurance policy, the principle of contra proferentem would apply and the terms must be interpreted in favour of the insured. The Court expressed serious concern over the conduct of TATA AIG General Insurance Company in repudiating the claim of a widow whose husband had availed a compulsory credit-linked insurance policy bundled with his housing loan, observing that the company had attempted to escape its obligations by taking a hyper-technical view.
Case Title: Amit Sunarlal Shahu vs Hare Madhav Electronics
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 363
The Bombay High Court has held that a complaint cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely because the complainant or counsel was absent on a few dates of hearing. The Court observed that principles of natural justice require giving the complainant a fair opportunity to prosecute the complaint on the merits, and that a harsh or hyper-technical approach should be avoided.
Case Title: Sruti Vijaykumar vs Falgun Yogendra Shroff
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 364
The Bombay High Court has stated that facing tax prosecution does not automatically bar an accused from foreign travel. single-judge Justice Shriram Modak stated that, "It is true right to travel abroad is recognised as a fundamental right. Merely because a person is facing with prosecution, it does not mean that he cannot travel abroad till the time the investigation is under progress or criminal case is pending." The respondent is an accused in connection with a File registered with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ('DRI'), Mumbai, for an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act.
Case Title: M/s Provident Housing Ltd. vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 365
The Bombay High Court held that tax liability under JDA (joint development agreement) arises only upon conveyance of property, not on execution of agreement. The division bench consists of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta stated that no liability actually fell upon the assessee at the time when JDA was entered into, as the liability arises only upon the conveyance of the property. The assessee developer becoming the owner of the property for which the JDA was executed. Accordingly, the tax liability does not fall upon the assessee.
Case Title: Rajiv Ranjan Singh vs Securities and Exchange Board of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 366
The Bombay High Court has held that discharge from prosecution under the SEBI Act cannot be claimed merely on the ground that an adjudicating officer of SEBI has not imposed a penalty or passed any adverse directions. The Court ruled that exoneration in regulatory proceedings will bar criminal prosecution only when there is a clear and categorical finding of innocence on the merits, and not otherwise.
Non-Disbursal Of Sanctioned Loan Does Not Amount To Abetment To Suicide: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Vishal Bhanudas Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 367
The Bombay High Court bench at Aurangabad recently held that merely because the finance company did not disburse a sanctioned loan amount for want of procedural requirements and/or demanded processing fees or took one instalment in advance, and the loan applicant commits suicide, the said firm or its employees, then cannot be booked for abetment of his suicide or defamation. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten Venegavkar said that the act of the finance company's employees cannot amount to 'instigation.'
Case Title: Milind Satish Sawant vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 368
The Bombay High Court has held that the right to appeal is a statutory right and not a fundamental, and thus the legislature can decide the appellate forum based on the subject matter of offences. "As to the contention that the accused loses one appellate forum, this Court finds it without merit. The right of appeal is not a fundamental right; it is purely a statutory right created by the Legislature. The Legislature, depending on the nature of the subject, may consciously provide for a higher forum of appeal in certain classes of cases," the court said.
Other Developments:
Victims of the 2008 Malegaon Bomb Blast case have moved the Bombay High Court challenging the judgment of the special court which had acquitted all the accused in the case including former BJP leader Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit. The appeal filed by Nisar Ahmed Sayyed Bilal, is likely to be heard by a division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale, on September 15. Other victims - Shaikh Liyaqat Mohiuddin, Shaikh Ishaque Shaikh Yusuf, Usman Khan Ainullah Khan, Mushtaque Shah Haroon Shah and Shaikh Ibrahim Shaikh Supdo, have also filed the appeals along with Bilal through advocate Abdul Mateen Shaikh.
In a temporary respite for popular Kannada actor Dhruva Sarja alias Dhruva Kumar, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday ordered the Mumbai Police not to file chargesheet in a criminal case lodged against him by filmmaker Raghavendra Hegde for allegedly duping him of Rs 9 crore. A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad passed an order directing the Mumbai Police not to proceed with filing the chargesheet in the case without the leave of the court.
Asking if the State has put 'humanity' to rest, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday pulled up the Maharashtra Police and also the Prison Authorities for not releasing Ramesh Gaichor, one of the accused in the Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad case, who was last month granted a temporary bail of three days to meet his ailing father in Pune. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Bhonsale was irked to know that despite a clear order granting three days bail to Gaichor on August 26, the Superintendent of Prisons, Taloja Central Jail, did not release him citing the recent week-long public holidays.
A Trust working for the welfare of the Veershaivya Lingayat community and its sub-castes, have petitioned the Bombay High Court through a Public Interest Litigation, challenging the decision of the Maharashtra government to issue Kunbi caste certificates to the Maratha community for availing reservation in education and public service. The Pune based Trust - Shiva Akhil Bhartiya Veershaiva Yuvak Sanghatana, has contended that the Government Resolutions issued on September 2, 2025 (latest one) and the ones issued on September 7, 2023 and October 31, 2023, resolving to issue Kunbi caste certificates to the Maratha Community, are illegal and invalid.
After Delhi HC, Bombay High Court Also Vacated Over Bomb Threat
The Bombay High Court on Friday noon received a Bomb threat after which the court premises were vacated resulting in judges rising from the court even before the lunch break. Initially, the bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, sitting in the central court, abruptly left the court hall. Bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh Patil were then asked to rise and subsequently, all the judges left their court halls. However, courts returned to normalcy post lunch break.