Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 7 - July 13

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 259 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 280]

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

Judgments/ Final Orders:

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.

Other Developments:

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.