Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 11 - August 17, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 327 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 336]

Shivshankar vs Sanjay, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 327

Jayesh Bandu Limie vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 328

Babu Abdul Ruf Sarkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 329

Shashikant Vitthal Kothawade vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 330

Ashwini Trading Co. vs Housing Bank Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 331

Sarfaraz Sayyad vs State of Goa, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 332

Siddharth Iswar Motghare vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 333

Zulferkar vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 334

The Commissioner of Sales Tax vs M/s. Associated Cement Company Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 335

Kalpesh Rajendra Jain vs Pramod Gaurishankar Todi, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 336

Final Orders/Judgments 

Insurance Claimant Can Restrict Claim Amount To Pay Lesser Court Fees U/S 166 Of Motor Vehicles Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shivshankar vs Sanjay

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 327

The Bombay High Court has held that a claimant can restrict the claim amount while filing an appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to avail the benefit of lower court fees at the initial stage, without being compelled to pay court fees on the full amount claimed in the original proceedings. Single-judge Justice Shailesh Brahme was hearing an appeal filed challenging the award passed by the claims tribunal passed U/Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant had initially claimed Rs. 40 Lakhs as compensation for the accident, and was granted Rs. 5.5 Lakhs by the tribunal. Being aggrieved by the award and for the enhancement of compensation, he preferred an appeal, valuing the claim at Rs. 1,00,000/- for the purpose of Court fees.

Candidate's Involvement In Gambling-Related Activities Is Moral Turpitude, Cannot Direct Consideration For Public Service: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Jayesh Bandu Limie vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 328

A candidate's involvement in an activity associated with gambling certainly amounts to moral turpitude and writ courts cannot order an employer to consider such a person for public service, especially in judiciary, the Bombay High Court held recently. A division bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the petition filed by one Jayesh Limje, who challenged the decision of the administration of the City Civil Sessions Court, Mumbai which on June 9, struck off his name from the selection list and also cancelled his appointment to the post of 'Clerk-Typist.'

Merely Possessing Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID Card Not Proof Of Being Indian Citizen : Bombay High Court

Case Title: Babu Abdul Ruf Sarkar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 329

In a significant order, the Bombay High Court while denying bail to an alleged Bangladeshi national, held that merely having documents such as Aadhar Card, PAN Card or a Voter ID Card, does not make someone a citizen of India and in fact the concerned person must place on record the verification of these documents. Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar denied bail to the Petitioner, who was booked by the Thane Police, last year, on the ground that he was a Bangladeshi national and that he misled the Indian authorities and obtained Aadhar Card, PAN Card and also a Voter ID Card, income tax records, gas and electricity connections, fraudulently.

Bombay High Court Slaps ₹50K Cost On Litigant Over Repeated Pleas Against Closure Of Right To Cross-Examine

Case Title: Shashikant Vitthal Kothawade vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 330

The Bombay High Court has dismissed with costs a petition filed by an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act seeking to set aside a 'no cross' order passed by the trial court, after he failed to cross-examine the prosecution's prime witness despite being given repeated opportunities over a span of five years. Single-judge Justice Kishore Sant was hearing the criminal writ, filed challenging the trial court's refusal to recall PW-2, the de facto complainant, after the accused failed to cross-examine him on three separate occasions, despite the court setting aside two prior no-cross orders and granting the same relief.

[RDB Act] Bombay High Court Upholds Transfer Of Recovery Suit From Commercial Court To DRT, Says S.31 Must Be Given Purposive Interpretation

Case Title: Ashwini Trading Co. vs Housing Bank Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 331

The Bombay High Court has held that Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) must be given a purposive interpretation to ensure that recovery proceedings by banks fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), even if the suit was not originally within its jurisdiction at the time of filing. The Court ruled that when a non-banking lender merges with a bank during the pendency of a recovery suit, the matter must be transferred to DRT, given Sections 17 and 18 of the RDB Act.

Cops Must Discharge Power With Accountability, Not On Apprehensions: Bombay High Court Declares Alleged PFI Member's Arrest 'Illegal'

Case Title: Sarfaraz Sayyad vs State of Goa

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 332

The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court while declaring 'illegal' the arrest of a sitting Councillor of a local body for being an alleged member of the Popular Front of India (PFI), recently held that the police cannot arrest a person under section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) merely on the apprehension that the said person may indulge in illegal activities in future and that there is a possibility of him breaching peace in the locality.

'Previous Decisions Taken By Gram Panchayat Cannot Be Cancelled Merely Due To Change In Body Of Representatives': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Siddharth Iswar Motghare vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 333

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has held that a subsequent change in the elected body of a Grampanchayat does not, by itself, justify the cancellation of decisions or resolutions passed by its earlier body. Such an approach would undermine the stability of local administration and is contrary to the purpose of Panchayati Raj institutions. A division bench of Justice MS Jawalkar and Justice Pravin Patil was hearing a writ petition filed by Siddharth Iswar Motghare challenging the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha's order of December 22, 2023, which quashed the recruitment of a Peon in Grampanchayat Antargaon. The petitioner, appointed in June 2022 and later confirmed in February 2023, alleged that the cancellation was based on a misapplication of a Government Resolution meant for State Government employees, which is inapplicable to Grampanchayat employees.

Concurrent Proceedings Under MCOCA Not Sufficient Explanation For Delay In Trial Under SC/ST Act: Bombay High Court Grants Bail

Case Title: Zulferkar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 334

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has held that pendency of a trial under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act) is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to keep another trial in abeyance, and prolonged custody without progress in trial amounts to a violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Single-judge bench Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the Gondia Sessions Court's order refusing bail to Zulferkar @ Chotu, accused of murder and other offences under the IPC, Arms Act, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Bombay Police Act, in a case registered in 2012. The appellant, in custody since September 2020 following cancellation of his earlier bail for breach of conditions, sought release on the ground that not a single witness had been examined in nearly five years of incarceration.

No Sales Tax On HDPE Bags Used To Pack Cement When Sold Separately: Bombay High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Associated Cement Company Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 335

The Bombay High Court stated that no sales tax can be levied on HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) bags at cement rate when sold separately. Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain were addressing the issue of whether there is an express and independent contract on the sale of HDPE bags in which cement is packed. “HDPE bags used to pack the cement were a distinct commodity with its own identity and were classified separately. There was no chemical or physical change in the packing either at the time of packing or at the time of use of the contents. The packing is capable of being reused after the contents have been consumed; there was evidence of reuse or resale, which was not challenged by the revenue. The HDPE bags were used to pack the cement for ease of transportation and convenience…,” opined the bench.

Bombay HC Judge Refuses To Recuse From Cases Over 'Scurrilous' Bribery Claims Against 2 Sitting Judges, Including Himself; Imposes ₹50K Cost

Case Title: Kalpesh Rajendra Jain vs Pramod Gaurishankar Todi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 336

Justice Milind Jadhav of the Bombay High Court last week refused to recuse himself from hearing a set of writ petitions filed in 2016, in which the petitioner levelled serious allegations of corruption, bribery and bias against two sitting Judges of the HC, including Justice Jadhav himself. Dismissing an interim application seeking his recusal from the matters, Justice Jadhav also imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner for attempting to 'browbeat' the Court and indulge in 'forum shopping'.

Other Developments:

Bombay High Court Seeks Mumbai Police's Stand On CPI(M)'s Plea To Hold Peaceful Protest Against Genocide In Gaza

The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 11) ordered the Mumbai Police to specify its stand on the plea filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) to hold peaceful protests and call for a ceasefire in Palestine and condemn the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Notably, this is the second time when the CPI(M) has knocked the doors of the High Court seeking permission to protest the genocide in Gaza as in its earlier round of litigation, the party was criticised by the bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad for not taking up issues that affect the citizens of India and instead focusing on fights taking place, thousands of miles away. In fact, the bench had asked the party to 'be patriots' underlining that merely speaking up for Gaza is not 'patriotism.'

CPI(M) Granted Permission To Conduct Peaceful Protest Condemning Gaza Genocide: Mumbai Police Tells High Court

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (12 August) recorded the Mumbai Police's decision to allow the Communist Party of India (Marxist) to hold a peaceful protest to condemn the ongoing genocide in Gaza. A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad accepted the statement made by the Mumbai Police that the protest would be held at Azad Maidan, a designated site for demonstrations in Mumbai.

"You Don't Like The Serial, Don't Watch It": Bombay High Court Mulls Community Service For Man Who Lodged Complaint Over Zee TV Show

While indicating that it will order the complainant to do cleaning and mopping work at one of the hospitals in Mumbai, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday closed for orders, the petition filed by Zee TV seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the channel for its new show titled 'Tum Se Tum Tak' which revolves around the love story of a nearly 46-year-old man and a 19-year-old girl.