Bombay High Court Monthly Digest - July 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 246 To 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 315

Ravindra s/o Laxman Narete vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 246

Rupali P Shah vs Adani Wilmar Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 247

Microfibers Pvt. Ltd. vs Yes Bank Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 248

Dnyaneshwar S/o Vishnu Surywanshi vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 249

M/s. Vivienda Luxury Homes LLP vs M/s. Gregory & Nicholas, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 250

Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 251

Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 252

Saravana Prasad vs Endemol India Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 253

Jan Mukti Morcha vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 254

Vast Media Network Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 255

Mayur Raju Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 256

Bajaj Auto Limited vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 257

Sonal Vaibhav Sawant vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 258

Sujal Mangala Birwadkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 259

UNS Women Legal Association (Regd) vs Bar Council of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 260

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 261

Srinwati Mukherji vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 262

Ritesh Haldar vs Elite Housing LLP, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 263

M/s. Skypak Services Specialists Limited vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 264

Darshan Singh Parmar vs The Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 265

SKP vs KSP, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 266

GST Notice U/S 79(1)(c) Can't Be Issued Directly To Bank; Must Be Served To Actual Taxpayer: Bombay High Court

Nagani Akram Mohammad Shafi vs Union of India,2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 267

Grand Centrum Realty LLP vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 268

Shramik Co-operative Housing Society vsState of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 269

M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 270

M/s. Poonawalla Estate Stud & Agricultural Farm vs Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 271

PVR Limited vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 272

Raghavendra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 273

M/s. Bassein Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 274

M/s. Galaxy International vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 275

Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Central Information Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 276

DVM Patel vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 277

M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 278

GlobeOp Financial Services (India) vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 279

Sujata Vilas Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 280

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

State of Maharashtra vs Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil Ansari, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 299

KSIQ vs IAQ, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 300

Seema Sureshchandra Mehata vs Marvel Realtors & Developers Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 301

Bindu Narang vs Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 302

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. vs Azhar Ahmed Qaisar Ahmed, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 303

Gazi Salauddin Rehmatulla Hoole alias Pardeshi Baba Trust vs New Shree Swami Samartha Borivade, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 304

Sadashiv Parbati Rupnawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 305

Celebi NAS Airport Services India Pvt Ltd vs Mumbai International Airport Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 306

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

Judgments/Final Orders:

Merely Saying 'I Love You' Without Any Sexual Intent Is Not Sexual Harassment: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ravindra s/o Laxman Narete vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 246

Merely expressing 'I Love You' does not by itself amount to an offence of sexual harassment if not accompanied with words or acts reflecting 'sexual intent' the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held on June 30. Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke noted that the accused in the instant case had only said 'I Love You' to the minor girl, while she was on her way home from tuition classes and even insisted her to disclose her name, once.

Bombay HC Rejects Copyright Infringement Suit Over Old Bollywood Songs, Says Assignment Of Music Rights Not Limited To Physical Medium

Case Title: Rupali P Shah vs Adani Wilmar Ltd.

Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 247

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a copyright infringement suit filed by the daughter of late Bollywood producer O.P. Ralhan, holding that the rights to exploit songs from his films were validly assigned in perpetuity and not restricted to any particular medium, such as physical records. Justice Manish Pitale, deciding the suit filed by Rupali P. Shah, held that the assignment agreements executed by Ralhan in favour of the predecessor of defendant No.2 (Adani Wilmar Ltd.) granted perpetual and wide-ranging rights that included the right to exploit musical works “by any and every means whatsoever.” The Court rejected the plaintiff's claim that the agreements only permitted exploitation through physical media such as gramophone records.

'Bank Cannot Delay Or Refuse To Open Account Over Demand For Aadhar Card': Bombay High Court Orders ₹50K Compensation

Case Title: Microfibers Pvt. Ltd. vs Yes Bank Ltd.

Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 248

The Bombay High Court has held that a bank could not have insisted on Aadhaar as a mandatory requirement for opening a bank account after the Supreme Court's verdict in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018), and awarded ₹50,000 in compensation to a company whose account was delayed due to the bank persisting on its demand of Aadhar Card. The division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain was hearing a writ petition filed by Microfibers Pvt. Ltd., which had approached the Court in 2018 after Yes Bank Ltd. declined to open a bank account without an Aadhaar card. The petitioner contended that the requirement was unlawful and in violation of interim orders of the Supreme Court that were in effect at the time.

Rape Cases Can't Be Quashed Based On 'Compromise'; Woman Liable For Perjury If She Disowns Allegations : Bombay High Court

Case Title: Dnyaneshwar S/o Vishnu Surywanshi vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 249

A 'compromise' arrived in a rape case is against the interest of the society and thus cannot be accepted to quash FIR against the accused, held the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court, recently, while refusing to quash a rape case filed against a two men.A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh refused to accept the contention of the complainant woman that she and the accused are 'close friends' and she lodged the FIR due to some 'misunderstanding.'

Plaintiff Cannot Confer Jurisdiction By Amending Pleadings, Amounts To Changing Nature Of Dispute: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Vivienda Luxury Homes LLP vs M/s. Gregory & Nicholas

Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 250

The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that a party cannot confer jurisdiction on a civil court through an amendment of pleadings that would fundamentally alter the nature of the dispute. Dismissing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court upheld the trial court's refusal to allow amendment of pleadings before deciding the respondent's application for return of the plaint due to lack of jurisdiction.

'Time Taken For Pre-Arrest Medical Exam Can't Justify Detention Beyond 24 Hours': Bombay High Court Orders Release Of Accused

Case Title: Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 251

The Bombay High Court has held that the period of pre-arrest medical examination cannot be excluded from the 24-hour timeline for producing an arrestee before a Magistrate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the CrPC. It declared the arrest of the accused illegal and ordered his release, observing that he was not produced before the Magistrate within the required time of 24 hours.

'Amnesty From Penalty Under Stamp Act Does Not Create Right Of Registration Of Instrument Beyond Limitation Period': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 252

The Bombay High Court has held that payment of stamp duty under the Maharashtra Stamp Duty Amnesty Scheme, 2023, cannot override the statutory time limits prescribed under the Registration Act, 1908, for presentation of documents. It dismissed a petition challenging the refusal to register a 1987 Development-cum-Sale Agreement despite payment of stamp duty under the Amnesty Scheme.

OPC & Its Sole Director Can't Be Treated As One For Liability Owed: Bombay HC Grants Relief To Director In Dispute Over MasterChef Production

Case Title: Saravana Prasad vs Endemol India Private Limited

Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 253

The Bombay High Court has observed that sole director of a One Person Company (“OPC”), cannot be treated parallelly with the separate legal entity. The court set aside the directions in the impugned order dated 10/07/2024 directing Mr. Saravana Prasad ("Prasad") to deposit Rs. 10.40 crores in a fixed deposit, and disclose all assets and all encumbrances, charges and attachments, and disclosure of all details of all companies and firms in which they are shareholder, director or partners. The bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the view of the arbitral tribunal to deposit the dues in a fixed deposit of a nationalised and secure it till the completion of the arbitral proceedings is a plausible view and does not warrant any interference u/s 17 of the A&C Act.

Bombay High Court Declines To Interfere With Site Chosen For Balasaheb Thackeray Memorial, Says It Falls Outside Scope Of Judicial Review

Case Title: Jan Mukti Morcha vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 254

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a batch of Public Interest Litigations challenging the decision to establish the Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak at the site of the Mayor's Bungalow in Shivaji Park, Dadar. The Court held that the choice of site, formation of the managing trust, and other consequential actions were well within the State's policy domain and followed due process. The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne delivered its verdict in four PILs filed opposing the State Government's decisions and statutory amendments enabling the memorial's construction.

Tendering Authority Cannot Assign Alternative Interpretation To Tender Clause Which Is Unambiguous: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vast Media Network Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 255

The Bombay High Court has held that a tender clause granting preference to bidders applying for a higher number of warehouses cannot be extended to the Central Store Office if the tender document draws a clear distinction between the two categories. The Court quashed the lease awarded to one bidder and restored the tender process.

Granting Bail In Serious Offences Under POCSO Act Defeats Statute: Bombay High Court Denies Bail To Man Booked For Sodomising Minor Boy

Case Title: Mayur Raju Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 256

The Bombay High Court recently held that in serious cases covered under special statute like the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO), courts should not have a 'liberal' approach and grant bail to an accused. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar observed that though every accused has a fundamental right to liberty but the same cannot be said to be an 'absolute right.'

Income Tax | Sales Tax Incentive Under Govt Scheme For Industrial Promotion Is Capital Receipt, Not Taxable: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Bajaj Auto Limited vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 257

The Bombay High Court has stated that sales tax incentive under a government scheme for industrial promotion is a capital receipt, not taxable. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne were addressing the issue of whether an incentive received in sales tax liability under a Scheme formulated by the State Government would be on the capital account, exempt from taxation, or on the revenue account, liable for taxation.

[Railways Act] Dependent's LR Entitled To Compensation Even If Dependent Of Deceased Dies During Pendency Of Appeal: Bombay HC

Case Title: Sonal Vaibhav Sawant vs Union of India

Citation: 2025, LiveLaw (Bom) 258

The Bombay High Court has held that the legal representative of a dependent of a deceased passenger is entitled to receive compensation under the Railways Act, 1989, even if the dependent dies during the pendency of proceedings. The Court observed that such compensation partakes the character of the deceased dependent's estate and does not abate with their death.

Child Of Inter-Caste Parents, Raised Alone By Backward-Caste Parent Can Be Considered 'Backward' Only If He Faced Caste Bias: Bombay HC

Case Title: Sujal Mangala Birwadkar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 259

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a student's plea seeking a caste validity certificate under the Scheduled Caste category based on his mother's caste, holding that there was no material to show he suffered any discrimination, deprivation, or disadvantage to warrant such recognition. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale was hearing a writ petition filed by Sujal Mangala Birwadkar challenging the order dated April 15, 2024, passed by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, which had rejected his claim for recognition as belonging to the Chambhar (SC) community.

POSH Act Won't Apply To Sexual Harassment Complaints Of Women Advocates To Bar Council Against Other Lawyers : Bombay High Court

Case Title: UNS Women Legal Association (Regd) vs Bar Council of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 260

The Bombay High Court on Monday held that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) 2013 (POSH Act) will not apply on the complaints lodged by female advocate members of the Bar Council of India (BCI) or the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) against other advocates. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne held that the provisions of the POSH Act will not apply to the complaints of female lawyer members of the BCI and BCMG as there is no "employee-employer" relationship between them.

[Income Tax Act] Reassessment Beyond 4 Years Requires Specific Non-Disclosure By Assessee, Not Mere Allegations: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 261

The Bombay High Court stated that reassessment under Section 147 Income Tax Act beyond 4 years requires specific non-disclosure by assessee, not mere bald allegations. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for the reopening of assessment proceedings. This section gives discretion to the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the assessment proceedings when he/she has reason to believe that some of the income has escaped assessment.

Husband Can't Be Asked To Pay Instalments For Under-Construction Flat Under DV Act, Not 'Shared Household': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Srinwati Mukherji vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 262

A flat under construction, though registered jointly in the name of the spouses, cannot be termed a 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV) 2005 and thus, a husband cannot be directed to pay instalments of such a flat, held the Bombay High Court recently. Justice Manjusha Deshpande noted that the flat in question was still under construction and that the couple has not resided in the same yet.

Right To Alternate Accommodation Under Redevelopment Plan Is Conferred Upon Person In Possession Of Premises, Not Owner: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ritesh Haldar vs Elite Housing LLP

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 263

The Bombay High Court has held that a woman in possession of a flat, though claimed to be a gratuitous licensee by the registered owner, cannot be dispossessed merely on account of redevelopment proceedings. The Court modified the directions issued by the Single Judge and directed that she be put back in possession of the redeveloped flat and receive transit rent, while the registered owner would execute the redevelopment agreement and receive the corpus amount.

No Leniency In Import/Export Lapses; Bombay High Court Upholds Licence Cancellation Of Courier Agency For Clearing Imports Without Authorisation

Case Title: M/s. Skypak Services Specialists Limited vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 264

The Bombay High Court has upheld the licence cancellation of a courier agency for clearing imports without authorisation by stating that any such exercise of discretion of leniency will only encourage persons to commit the offence by taking recourse to the services of the courier agencies. A bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “the petitioner has been negligent in carrying out its obligation under the 1998 Regulations. These obligations are cast on the Authorised Courier since the petitioner was engaged in the business of clearance of imports and exports. There is a high degree of responsibility cast upon the petitioner in the discharge of its functions because the repercussions of illegal imports and exports are economically and otherwise also far reaching.”

Reward Schemes Must Be Fairly Implemented: Bombay High Court Directs Dept To Pay Informer For Assisting In Tax Recovery

Case Title: Darshan Singh Parmar vs The Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 265

The Bombay High Court has directed the department to pay informer for assisting in tax evasion recovery. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “If the Government has formulated a reward scheme, it must be implemented fairly and transparently. Informers who take risks and invest time must not be made to run from pillar to post to secure what may be due and payable. There must be no unreasonable delay in paying the determined reward amounts, and the practice of raising frivolous and belated objections only to avoid legitimate payments must also be eschewed.”

Courts Need Not Order DNA Test Of Child To Determine Paternity Even If Mother Agrees, Must Act As Custodians Of Child's Rights: Bombay HC

Case Title: SKP vs KSP

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 266

The Bombay High Court has held that even if a mother agrees to get done the DNA profiling test of her child to ascertain its paternity, the courts must still act as the 'custodian' of the rights of the child and consider the pros and cons of the said test before calling upon the minor to undergo the test.Single-judge Justice RM Joshi said the a child being a minor is not capable of taking decision of agreeing or refusing the DNA test.

ED Can Lodge Cases Under PMLA While Relying On Predicate Offences Under BNS, As It Replaced IPC: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Nagani Akram Mohammad Shafi vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 267

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (July 8) held that 'predicate offences' lodged under the newly introduced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) can be treated as 'scheduled offences' under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), even if its schedule only refers to the repealed Indian Penal Code (IPC).

[Registration Act] Delay Beyond Control Of Party Excluded While Calculating Limitation For Registering Document: Bombay HC

Case Title: Grand Centrum Realty LLP vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 268

The Bombay High Court has held that the period during which a party is restrained by a court order, from executing or registering a document must be excluded while computing the time limit for presentation under the Registration Act, 1908. The Court accordingly directed the registration of two agreements for sale executed in 2018, rejecting the Registrar's refusal on the ground of limitation. The division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale was hearing writ petitions filed under Article 226 by Grand Centrum Realty LLP, which had entered into two agreements for sale dated March 6, 2018, with a public charitable trust.

Compensation For Land Acquisition Payable Even Without Representation: Bombay High Court Upholds Corporation's Duty Under Article 300-A

Case Title: Shramik Co-operative Housing Society vsState of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 269

The Bombay High Court has held that once a municipal corporation has assured landowners Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in lieu of land acquired for a public project, it is constitutionally and statutorily bound to honour the commitment. The Court quashed the Nagpur Municipal Corporation's 2024 refusal to confer TDR, directing it to issue the same as previously assured in 2001.

[Income Tax Act] Amount Indicated In P&L Account As Provision For Doubtful Debts/Advances Cannot Be Treated As "Reserve" U/S 115JA: Bombay HC

Case Title:MJ Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 270

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a provision for doubtful debts cannot be treated as either a "reserve" or a "provision for liability" under clauses (b) or (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus cannot be added back to the book profits for the purpose of minimum alternate tax (MAT). The Court accordingly overturned the addition of ₹2.49 crore made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Tribunal.

Insurance Claim Received On Dead Horses Is Capital Receipt, Not Taxable As Income U/S 41(1): Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Poonawalla Estate Stud & Agricultural Farm vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 271

The Bombay High Court held that insurance claim received on dead horses is capital receipt, not taxable as income under Section 41(1) Of Income Tax Act. The bench opined that horses in respect of which the insurance claim was received were Assessee's capital assets and that therefore insurance receipt arising therefrom could only have been considered as capital receipt, not chargeable to tax.

Bombay High Court Quashes Maharashtra Govt Order Barring Cinema Owners From Levying Service Charge On Online Film Tickets

Case Title: PVR Limited vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 272

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Thursday quashed two Government Orders (GOs) issued on April 4, 2013 and March 18, 2014 by which the Maharashtra government restricted cinema owners from levying service charge or convenience fees on online tickets. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain held that the said GOs violated the right to practice any profession.

'Building Cannot Be Demolished For Making Public Street Without Granting Hearing To Owner': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Raghavendra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Commissioner

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 273

The Bombay High Court has quashed the sanction of a new road line (RL) by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) under Section 291 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC), holding that the move was taken without application of mind and in violation of the landowner's right to be heard.

Companies Act] Debtor Company Cannot Contest Its Liability For The First Time In Winding-Up Proceedings: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Bassein Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.

Citation 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 274

The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal against the winding-up of a company that defaulted on dues owed to a government enterprise and had no ongoing business activity or assets. The Court rejected the company's defence that there was a “bonafide dispute” over the debt, holding that the company's objections were afterthoughts and that its inability to pay was well established.

GST Notice U/S 79(1)(c) Can't Be Issued Directly To Bank; Must Be Served To Actual Taxpayer: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Galaxy International vs Union of India

Citation:2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 275

The Bombay High Court held that a GST notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act can't be issued directly to the bank. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act was not addressed to the assessee but directly to the bank.

'Annual General Reports Made By SEBI Cannot Be Disclosed Without Following Procedure U/S 11 Of RTI Act': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Central Information Commissioner

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 276

The Bombay High Court has held that before disclosing any information related to third parties, including stock exchanges like NSE and BSE, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), the concerned authority must strictly comply with the mandatory procedure laid down in Section 11 of the Act. A division bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain passed the ruling in a batch of writ petitions arising from an RTI application filed by transparency activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal seeking information about SEBI's appointment of public interest directors (PIDs) and inspection reports of institutions like BSE, NSE, and MCX.

Mumbai's Development Work Can't Be Stopped But It Cannot Trample Heritage Structures: Bombay High Court

Case Title: DVM Patel vs State of Maharashtra

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 277

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 10) while disposing of a petition filed by the trustees of the heritage JN Petit building alleging damages to the structure due to the underground construction work for the Metro III, held that though development works in a city like Mumbai cannot be stopped but the same cannot be permitted to run roughshod over the concerns of preserving and maintaining heritage buildings for posterity.

GST TRAN-I Credit Can Be Revised Based On Manually Filed Excise Return: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 278

The Bombay High Court held that GST TRAN-I credit can be revised based on manually filed ER-1 Return. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “there were technical issues with respect to revising TRAN-1 and non-availability of electronic mode to revise excise return and it is only after directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2022 that the assessee was able to revise its TRAN-1/TRAN-2 by filing manual revised excise return to claim the credit and transitioned under new regime.”

GST Order Can't Be A Copy-Paste Of Showcause Notice, Independent Reasoning Must Be Present: Bombay High Court

Case Title: GlobeOp Financial Services (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 279

The Bombay High Court held that a GST order can't be a copy-paste of the show cause notice and that independent reasoning must be present. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “simply cutting and pasting the allegatio ot inspire confidence that due consideration has been shown to the cause, and the decision is made after its due consideration. Ultimately, these are aspects of natural justice principles that should guide the decision-making process in such cases.”

Right To Life Cannot Be Denied To Suspect, Obligation Of State & Courts To Ensure It Is Not Violated: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sujata Vilas Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 280

The guarantee of 'right to life and liberty' cannot be denied to a suspect who is sought to be made an accused on an investigation and it is the obligation of the State and also of the Courts to ensure that there is no infringement of this 'indefeasible' right, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court held on Friday. Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, while granting bail to a woman arrested after sunset, said the police must follow the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which describes the manner and the extent to which a person can be deprived of his liberty.

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.

Marriages 'Sacrosanct' In Hindus But Misuse Of Domestic Violence Act A Menace, Courts Must Encourage Settlement: Bombay High Court

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.

Suit Cannot Be Dismissed On Grounds Of Res Judicata Without Giving Party An Opportunity To Respond: Bombay High Court

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.

Bombay HC Directs Amazon To Comply With Arbitral Tribunals' Interim Orders, Delist All Victorinox Products Being Sold By Ex-Dealer

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.

Bombay High Court Clears Way For Passenger Jetty Near Gateway Of India; Rejects Colaba Residents' Plea

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.

Bombay High Court Protects Singer Sonu Nigam's Right To Privacy, Directs Lawyer Sonu Nigam Singh To Use His Full Name In 'X' Account

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.

Direction Of Disclosure Or Attachment Of Assets Cannot Be Passed Against A Person Who Is Not A Party To The Arbitral Award: Bombay HC

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.

'Reservation In PSU Contracts For SC/ST Contractors Does Not Violate Article 14': Bombay High Court Upholds BPCL Tender Conditions

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.

Collector Can Review Its Administrative Orders Even Without Express Provisions Conferring Such Power: Bombay High Court

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."

UAPA Is A 'Deterrent' To Unlawful Activities, Cannot Be Equated With Preventive Detention Due To Its Title: Bombay High Court

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.

Accusing Husband Of Extra-Marital Affair, Insulting Him In Front Of Friends Is Cruelty: Bombay High Court

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.

Relatives Can't Adopt Foreign Child Who Isn't In Need Of 'Care & Protection' Or 'Conflict With Law' As Per JJ Act: Bombay High Court

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.

Mother Is Child's Natural Guardian After Father's Death, Even If He Is Residing With Grandparents For A Long Time: Bombay High Court

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.

Member Of Society Can Be Directed To Vacate Premises U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act For Smooth Redevelopment: Bombay High Court

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.

Entry In Scheduled Tribe List Must Be Read As It Is, Pre-Constitutional Evidence Cannot Be Ignored: Bombay High Court

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.

Maharashtra ATS Tortured Accused, Officers Were Frustrated: Bombay High Court While Acquitting 12 Men From 7/11 Mumbai Train Blasts Case

Case Titile: State of Maharashtra vs Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil Ansari

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 299

The Bombay High Court while acquitting all the 12 convicts in the infamous 7/11 Mumbai train blast case, observed that the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) probing the case tortured the accused in the most 'inhuman and barbaric' manner as the officers were 'frustrated' at the relevant time and thus the 'confessional statements' of the accused obtained by the cops, were inadmissible. A special division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak after going through the evidence on record, noted that the accused were in 'prolonged' police custody till 76 days and that they retracted from their confessions recorded during their remand, just the moment when they were produced before the court for judicial custody.

Welfare & Comfort Of Child Prevails When Pitted Against Personal Law: Bombay High Court Lets Muslim Mother Retain Custody Of 9-Yr-Old

Case Title: KSIQ vs IAQ

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 300

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday (July 21) held that even when a personal law is pitted against the welfare and comfort of a child, the latter would always have an upper hand. Single-judge Justice Shailesh Brahme noted that the Muslim Personal Law allows the custody of a minor above the age of 7-years to the father and the child in the instant case was 9-years-old. However, after personally interacting with the child, the judge noted that he has a greater bonding with his mother and thus granted custody in her favour.

Absence Of Certificate Under Rule 4 Of MahaRERA Rules Does Not Bar Maintainability Of Execution Application Before Civil Court: Bombay HC

Case Title: Seema Sureshchandra Mehata vs Marvel Realtors & Developers Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 301

The Bombay High Court has held that the certificate contemplated under Rule 4 of the MahaRERA Rules, 2017, is not mandatory in an execution application, and the object of this Rule is to ensure that the directions for handing over possession are executed by the civil court within whose jurisdiction the project is situated.

Lok Adalat Cannot Deny Opportunity Of Cross Examination To Party Without Reasons, Even Though Summary Procedures Are Followed: Bombay HC

Case Title: Bindu Narang vs Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 302

The Bombay High Court has held that the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) must adhere to the principles of natural justice as enshrined in Section 22-D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, even though summary procedure is followed. The Court quashed the PLA's order in a dispute involving a telecom bill, on the ground that the petitioner was denied the right to cross-examine the respondent's witness without any reasoning.

Change In Nature Of Industrial Activity Does Not Result In Unauthorised Use Of Electricity Unless Revenue Loss Is Shown: Bombay HC

Case Title: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. vs Azhar Ahmed Qaisar Ahmed

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 303

The Bombay High Court has held that merely changing the purpose of electricity usage from one industrial activity to another does not amount to unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, unless it causes revenue loss to the distribution company. Justice Vrushali Joshi of the Nagpur Bench dismissed a writ petition filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) challenging the Appellate Authority's order that had set aside a demand bill issued to consumer Azhar Ahmed Qaisar Ahmed.

Mob Fury, Footfall Of People On Land Claimed As 'Dargah' Can't Prove Structure Is Legal: Bombay High Court Refuses To Recall Demolition Order

Case Title: Gazi Salauddin Rehmatulla Hoole alias Pardeshi Baba Trust vs New Shree Swami Samartha Borivade

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 304

Mere "mob fury" or "footfall of people" on a particular piece of land based on an assertion that it is a Dargah cannot prove that it is a legal structure, said the Bombay High Court while dismissing the plea filed by Gazi Salauddin Rehmatulla Hoole alias Pardeshi Baba Trust seeking recall of a May 30 order directing demolition of a structure in Thane. It thus refused to recall the demolition of the Dargah, which has allegedly expanded from 160 sq. ft. to over 17,610 sq. ft. without municipal approvals on private land in Thane district.

Taunting Wife Over Dark Complexion, Inability To Cook Is Not 'High Degree Harassment' To Constitute Abetment Or Cruelty: Bombay HC

Case Title: Sadashiv Parbati Rupnawar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 305

Taunting a woman about her complexion and inability to prepare food properly are 'domestic quarrels' and the same cannot be a ground to invoke sections 498-A (harassment) and 306 (abetment to suicide) if the woman dies by suicide, the Bombay High Court held recently, while acquitting a man of a 27-year-old case. Single-judge Justice Shriram Modak said the allegations that the appellant husband taunted the deceased wife on her dark complexion and her father-in-law taunted her about the food quality, etc., though harassment but cannot be said to be of a higher degree.

Bombay High Court Vacates Interim Order Restraining Mumbai Airport From Taking Final Decision To Replace Turkish Firm Çelebi

Case Title: Celebi NAS Airport Services India Pvt Ltd vs Mumbai International Airport Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 306

The Bombay High Court this week vacated its earlier order restraining Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) from taking a final decision on the bids to replace Turkey-based Celebi Aviation Holding's subsidiary Celebi NAS for ground and bridge handling services at city's International airport. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan noted that the Delhi High Court recently dismissed the petition filed by Celebi Aviation Holding challenging the 'security clearance' by India's aviation security regulator - Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) under the Ministry of Civil Aviation of India, which had revoked the security clearance of Celebi Airport Services India of Celebi, citing grounds related to 'national security' with immediate effect.

Merely Attending PFI Seminars & Physical Training Does Not Amount To Terrorist Act Under UAPA: Bombay High Court

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.

Live-In Agreement With Man To Give Birth For Consideration Akin To Surrogacy, No Free Consent: Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash Rape Case

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.

'Mere Imposition Of Costs Cannot Justify Condonation Of Inordinate Delay Without Sufficient Cause': Bombay High Court

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.

'Violates Constitutional Right To Property': Bombay HC Directs Inquiry Into Issuance Of Unilateral Redevelopment Notices U/S 79A Of MHADA Act

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.

Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Woman Who Reacted With 'Laughing Emoji' To Messages Praising Operation Sindoor

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.

[S.438 BNSS] Sessions Court Cannot Entertain An Issue Outside Scope Of Original Proceedings Under Revisional Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court

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.

Proceedings Can Be Remitted Back To Same Arbitrator U/S 33 & 34(4) Of A&C Act Only Before Passing Of Award: Bombay High Court

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.

Other Developments:

Bombay HC Takes Suo Moto Cognisance Of Transfer Of Female Inmates Out Of Observation Homes After Attaining Majority, Says Education Can't Be Affected

The Bombay High Court bench at Aurangabad recently took suo moto cognisance of the issue relating to 'transferring' girl inmates from observation homes in the city to other districts after they attain majority. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh noted that though the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) is the concerned authority to decide whether a child is in need of care and protection, however, the education of such girls on attaining majority cannot be affected by transferring them to other districts.

Mosques Approach Bombay High Court Challenging Mumbai Police Notices To Remove Azaan Loudspeakers

Five Mosques from Mumbai's eastern suburbs have approached the Bombay High Court accusing the Police of 'targeting' the Muslim Community by issuing allegedly 'unsubstantiated' notices to several such mosques for removing loudspeakers used for daily Azaan on ground of breaching the provisions of Noise Pollution Rules, 2000. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Milind Sathaye on Tuesday issued notice to the Maharashtra Government, Mumbai Police and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and a further directive is issued to the authorities to file their response in the plea by July 9, the next date of hearing.

Advocate Rajesh Datar Withdraws Consent For Judgeship After Centre's Inaction On SC Collegium Recommendation

Advocate Rajesh Datar from the Bombay High Court recently withdrew his consent form for becoming a Bombay High Court judge, which he filled in April 2024. Datar was recommended for appointment as an additional judge of the Bombay High Court by the SC Collegium on September 24, 2024, under then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjay Chandrachud. Notably, among the four advocates recommended by the SC Collegium, Datar's name appeared at the top of the list. This means, if the said recommendation were to be approved by the Central Government, he would be senior to the three other advocates.

"Will Lead To Similar Requests For Other Festivals": Bombay HC Tells BMC To Reconsider Ban On Animal Slaughter For Paryushan Parva

"If slaughter houses are closed for 9 days of Paryushan Parva in a city like Mumbai which houses diversified population, then everyone celebrating other festivals like Ganesh Chaturthi, Durga Puja/Navratri etc will come to the court and seek similar prayers," Bombay High Court orally remarked while hearing a PIL seeking ban on slaughtering of animals in Mumbai, Pune and Nashik for a period of 9 days in view of the 'Paryushan Parva.'

Fourth Bombay High Court Judge Recuses From Hearing HDFC CEO's Plea For Quashing FIR Lodged By Lilavati Hospital

Yet another judge of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday recused from hearing the petition filed by Sashidhar Jagdishan, the CEO of HDFC Bank, who has sought to quash an FIR lodged against him at the behest of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. On Tuesday morning, the petition was mentioned before a division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad. However, citing personal difficulty, Justice Ankhad, who took oath of the office on July 4, recused from hearing the case.

'Are Law Enacted By Parliament Binding On Maharashtra Police?' Bombay High Court Asks DGP After Shoddy Probe

The Bombay High Court has ordered the Director General of Maharashtra Police to explain on oath whether the provisions of the law enacted by the Parliament are binding on the State police force or if the same are only to be retained in the books of law. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Rajesh Patil has asked the DGP to file a detailed reply explaining his stand on the issue.

Major Relief For Anil Ambani As Canara Bank Withdraws Order Classifying Reliance Comm Loan Account As 'Fraud'

In a relief for industrialist Anil Ambani, the Canara Bank recently informed the Bombay High Court that it has 'withdrawn' its order classifying his loan account, related to Reliance Communications, as "fraudulent account." A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale accepted the statement and disposed of the petition filed by Ambani challenging the validity of the said order.

'Stop Being So Sensitive': Bombay High Court Slams Influencer For Seeking FIR Against Farah Khan For Allegedly Hurting Hindu Sentiments

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.

'Will Decide On Certification In Two Days': CBFC Tells Bombay High Court In Plea By Makers Of Film Based On Yogi Adityanath

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.

Bombay HC Takes Suo Moto Cognisance Of News Report Claiming 300 Colleges Across State Had No Students, But Staff Were 'Pocketing Crores'

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."

Bombay High Court Again Flags 'Copy-Paste' Witness Statements In Criminal Cases, Asks State To Address 'Menace'

In a continuing expression of concern, the Bombay High Court recently once again flagged the practice of 'copy-pasting' witness statements by investigating officers and directed the State Government to address this growing 'menace'. A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh made these observations while disposing of a Criminal Application, which was withdrawn after the Court indicated its disinclination to grant relief.

Bombay High Court Directs GST Council To Develop Mechanism For Cross-State ITC Transfer In Mergers/Amalgamations

The Bombay High Court has directed the GST Council and GST Network to develop a mechanism for cross-state ITC transfer in Mergers/amalgamations. A bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta permitted the IGST and CGST amount lying in the electronic credit ledger of the Transferor Company to be transferred to the Petitioner Company by physical mode for the time being, subject to the adjustments to be made in future.

Bombay High Court Grants Relief To Uber Against Protests By Rickshaw Unions After Threats Of Violence, Disruption Of Services

The Bombay High Court has granted urgent ex parte ad interim relief to Uber in its plea seeking protection against protests scheduled to be held by Rickshaw drivers unions from 23rd July (today) over threats of violence and disruption to their services. The plea was heard by a single bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla.

'7,000 Idols Is A Huge Number': Bombay High Court Urges Maharashtra Govt To Explore Artificial Immersion For Taller Ganesh Idols

In a development in the ongoing litigation with respect to ban on Plaster of Paris (PoP) made Ganesh idols and immersion of the same in natural waterbodies, the Maharashtra Government today furnished a new policy before the Bombay High Court stating that it will permit immersion of only idols above 5 feet in natural water bodies and the same will be removed the next morning itself, to avoid any harm to the environment.

Bombay High Court 'Disturbed' After Police Officer Produces Imposter In Court, Instead Of Original Complainant In FIR Against Zee TV Show

The Bombay High Court was recently disturbed by the conduct of a Cyber Crime Police Officer, who produced an imposter before the court passing him off as a complainant in a First Information Report (FIR) against a TV serial "Tum Se Tum Tak" aired on popular channel Zee TV. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad noted that the complainant as per the FIR - Sunil Sharma, has contended that his sentiments are hurt by the telecasting of the serial, which revolves around the story of a 50-year-old man falling in love with a 20-year-old girl.

All PoP Idols Up To 6 Feet Will Be 'Compulsorily Immersed' In Artificial Water Tanks: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 24) made it clear that for the forthcoming Ganeshotsav and Durga Puja festivals, idols made of Plaster of Paris (PoP) which are till the height of 6 feet, will have to be mandatorily immersed in artificial ponds/water tanks. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne noted that last year, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had created around 204 water tanks for 1.95 lakh Ganesh idols which were below 5 feet. However, only 85,000 such idols were immersed in these 204 tanks whereas the remaining were immersed only in natural water bodies.

Bombay High Court Imposes Hefty Costs Of ₹30 Lakhs On Two Litigants, Advocates For Restoring Petitions Dismissed In 2020

The Bombay High Court recently imposed a hefty costs of Rs 30 lakhs on two petitioners and their advocates for restoring their writ petitions filed in the year 2019, which were dismissed for not removing office objections. Single-judge Justice Kamal Khata imposed Rs 15 lakhs costs on Mahatma Phule Cooperative Housing Society (Proposed) and their advocates along with Rs 15 lakhs on Unity Land Consultancy (Developer) and their advocates.

'Speaking For Gaza Isn't Patriotism, Take Up Issues Of Our Own Country' : Bombay HC Rejects CPI(M) Plea For Protest On Palestine Issue

The Bombay High Court on Friday, while dismissing a petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) seeking to protest the "Genocide" in Gaza by Israel, asked the petitioner to "show patriotism for the citizens of our own country first." A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad said India already has several issues to deal with, and the petitioner party should avoid taking up issues which do not affect the citizens of India.

'Nothing More Vital Than Human Health': Bombay HC Notes Adverse Effects Of Pigeon Droppings; Stay On Demolition Of 'Kabutarkhanas' To Continue

While hearing petitions both in favour and against the decision of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) over demolition of Kabutarkhanas (pigeon feeding enclosures) in Mumbai, the Bombay High Court on July 24 (Thursday) opined that if there is a hazard or potential for such hazard by breeding of pigeons and congregating them in Kabutarkhanas, certainly it is a matter of grave social concern.

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."