Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up June 23 - June 29

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 231 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 243]

Shireen Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy vs Jamsheed Mehli Poncha, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 231

Sudhir Brijendra Jain vs Rajendra Dhedya Gavit, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 232

ABC vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 233

Chetan Ahire vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 234

Union of India Through The General Manager Central Railway vs PLR HC RBR JV, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 235

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 236

SKPS vs PSS, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 237

Nandkumar Infrastructure LLP vs The Superintendent Engineer, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 238

Marico Limited vs Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 239

M/s. Carona Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 240

Manoj Lalwani vs Reserve Bank of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 241

Neha Shroff vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 242

The Superintending Engineer vs Pundlik Kondiba Pachpinde, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 243

Judgments/Final Orders:

Bombay High Court Clears Confusion Over Ratan Tata's Shares Not Mentioned In His Will

Case Title: Shireen Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy vs Jamsheed Mehli Poncha

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 231

Clearing the air over who will get the 'listed and unlisted' shares owned by late industrialist Ratan Tata, which were not otherwise distributed in his Will, the Bombay High Court last week clarified that such shares will be distributed 'equally' between the Ratan Tata Endowment Foundation and the Ratan Tata Endowment Trust. Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale disposed of the probate proceedings initiated for deciding the legality of Tata's original Will made on February 23, 2022 and further altered or modified through four separate Codicils (Will alterations or additions) with the last one being December 22, 2023.

Candidate Disclosing Information About Second Wife In Election Affidavit Not By Itself Ground To Unseat Him: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sudhir Brijendra Jain vs Rajendra Dhedya Gavit

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 232

If a candidate's religion or culture permits polygamy, then he can add an additional column in the Form 26 Affidavit and disclose details of the second spouse and the same act would not disqualify him from contesting elections nor would he be unseated later by virtue of an election petition, held the Bombay High Court on Monday (June 23). Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne upheld the election of Shiv Sena candidate Rajendra Gavit from Palghar Constituency to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly, elections of which were held last year.

Bombay High Court Permits Woman To Abort 25-Week Pregnancy After Her 'Estranged' Partner Agrees To Look After Her

Case Title: ABC vs State of Maharashtra

 Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 233

In a unique turn of events, the partner of an unmarried woman, who moved the Bombay High Court seeking to abort her 25 weeks foetus, fearing 'social stigma', has agreed to look after her till she undergoes the procedure under Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act to abort her foetus. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale noted that the 31-year-old woman was 'left in lurch' by 'her own circumstances.'

Bombay High Court Rejects Plea Challenging 2024 Maharashtra Assembly Elections Over Alleged Bogus Voting

Case Title: Chetan Ahire vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 234

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (June 25) dismissed a petition challenging elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly which were concluded in November last year, over alleged bogus voting. The petition filed by one Chetan Ahire alleged that over 75 lakh votes were polled after the official closing time of polling (6 PM). He also claimed there were several discrepancies in almost 95 constituencies, wherein the number of votes polled and the number of votes counted, did not match.

Contractor Cannot Be Denied Payment For Extra Work Approved By Railways Through Their Actions: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Union of India Through The General Manager Central Railway vs PLR HC RBR JV

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 235

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that a contractor cannot be denied payment for extra work that, while beyond the original scope of the agreement, was clearly consented to by the other party through its conduct. When such work is accepted, measured, and not objected to contemporaneously, the benefiting party cannot later claim it was beyond the contract's scope. To allow this would amount to unjust enrichment.

Benefit Of Cash Compensatory Scheme Cannot Be Denied On Castor Oil Exports Based On Subsequent Test Change: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 236

The Bombay High Court stated that benefit of cash compensatory scheme benefit cannot be denied on castor oil exports based on subsequent test change. The Division Bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain has observed that contracts executed prior to the cutoff day would not be governed by the subsequent change in the scheme granting the benefit.

Even If Wife Is Earning She Cannot Be Deprived Support From Husband To Maintain Standard Of Living: Bombay High Court

Case Title: SKPS vs PSS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 237

Just because a wife is earning does not mean that she can be deprived of the support from her husband with the same standard of living to which she was accustomed to after her marriage, the Bombay High Court held recently. Single-judge Justice Manjusha Deshpande noted that the wife in the instant case, though earning, her income was not sufficient for her own maintenance since she had to travel daily a long distance for her job.

Prior Experience Of LLP Partner As Proprietor Can Be Considered As Experience Of LLP: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Nandkumar Infrastructure LLP vs The Superintendent Engineer

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 238

The Bombay High Court has held that the experience of a proprietor who becomes a partner in a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) can be considered for evaluating the LLP's eligibility in a public tender, even in the absence of a notarized business transfer agreement. The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne held that the rejection of the petitioner's bid as “non-responsive” was arbitrary and directed the tendering authority to open the financial bid and proceed with renegotiation between the lowest two bidders.

'Not Honest Adoption When Essential Features Were Copied': Bombay HC Grants Interim Injunction To Parachute Hair Oil Over Trademark Infringement

Case Title: Marico Limited vs Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 239

The Bombay High Court granted interim relief in favour of Marico Limited, restraining Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. and others from using labels, packaging, and bottles that are deceptively similar to the registered trademarks and trade dress of Marico's popular “Parachute,” “Parachute Advanced,” and “Parachute Jasmine” products. Single-judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, while allowing Marico's interim application, held that although the defendant possesses a registered trademark for “Cocoplus,” it was not marketing its products under that registered label. The Court observed that “essential features” of the plaintiff's products had been “slavishly copied.”

Assessee Cannot Be Penalised U/S 271(1)(c) Of Income Tax Act For Merely Raising A Plausible Claim: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Carona Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 240

The Bombay High Court stated that the assessee cannot be penalised under Section 271(1) (c) of income tax act for merely raising a plausible claim. The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne opined that “the claim raised by the Assessee for claiming deduction in respect of the crystalised liability towards additional bonus was a plausible claim. Whether such claim is tenable in law or not is an altogether different issue. What is relevant to note is the position that the claim made by the Assessee can, by no stretch of imagination, be treated as malafide act of concealment of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.”

[SARFAESI Act] Incumbent Upon Borrower To Proactively Approach Lender To Avail Benefits Of Revival Or Restructuring: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Manoj Lalwani vs Reserve Bank of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 241

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Manoj Lalwani, Director of Ritu Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., challenging HDFC Bank's recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, terming the plea as an "attempt to stall the auction" of secured assets. The division bench of Justices Makarand Karnik and Nitin Borkar found that the petitioner had no locus to file the petition, as the company was already under liquidation following the commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). “Once liquidation has been initiated, all powers of the board of directors vest with the liquidator. The petitioner, as a former director, has no statutory authority to pursue the writ,” the Court noted.

Citizens Staying Abroad For Uncertain Period Fall Under “Persons Resident Outside India" Under FERA: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Neha Shroff vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 242

The Bombay High Court has held that when circumstances indicate an Indian citizen intends to stay abroad for an uncertain period, the burden to prove otherwise is on the person whose residence in India is under issue. Dismissing a batch of appeals filed by members of the Shroff family, the Court upheld penalties for violation of FERA provisions related to unauthorized transactions in Indian company shares. A division bench comprising Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain ruled that the appellants had failed to rebut the presumption that they were residents outside India during the relevant period, and held that there was sufficient material to establish their intent to stay abroad indefinitely.

Industrial Disputes Act; Section 33(C)(2) Only Applies If Entitlement Is Established Through Undisputed Evidence: Bombay HC

Case Title: The Superintending Engineer vs Pundlik Kondiba Pachpinde

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 243

A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), consisting of Justice Prafulla Khubalkar dismissed a challenge to a labour court award that provided overtime wages with interest to retired employees. The court held that an employees' right to overtime wages was a pre-existing statutory right under Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, and that it can be enforced through Section 33(c )(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Payment Of Gratuity Act Applies To Zilla Parishad Employees: Bombay HC

Case Title: Zilla Parishad vs Pradeep Bhaurao Pokale

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 244

A single judge bench of Justice Mukulika Jawalkar held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, applies to Zilla parishad employees. However, the court explained that Section 4(6) of the Act allows the withholding or forfeiture of gratuity if an employee faces criminal proceedings that involve moral turpitude.

Other Developments:

"Shocked" Over Sale Of Drugs, Ciggerates & E-Cigarettes Outside Schools, Bombay High Court Takes Suo Motu Congizance

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently took suo motu cognizance of the illegal sale of drugs, ciggarates and even e-cigarettes near schools and colleges in the city.A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Yanshivraj Khobragade were "disturbed" to take note of the news items published in the Marathi Daily "Dainik Sakal" in the June 14 and June 16 editions.

Bombay High Court Questions Right Of Young Lawyers To Claim Stipend From State Bar Council, Asks Who Will Provide Funds

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (June 25) questioned if young lawyers had any statutory right to claim stipend from the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. While the bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne personally agreed that young lawyers must be given a stipend, even Rs 45,000 in a city like Mumbai, the bench still questioned the legal right based on which such a stipend could be claimed from the Bar Council.

Three Bombay High Court Judges Recuse From Hearing HDFC CEO's Plea For Quashing FIR Lodged By Lilavati Hospital

In an interesting turn of events, at least 03 judges of the Bombay High Court have from last one week, have 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. Notably, the complainant Trust runs the famous Lilavati Hospital in Mumbai. In its FIR, the Trust has accused Jagdishan of accepting a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore from erstwhile Trustee Chetan Mehta, for giving him financial advice and helping him to retain control over the Trust's governance. It further accused Jagdishan of interfering in its internal affairs by misusing his position as the head of the HDFC bank.