Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 30 - July 06

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 244 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 258]

Zilla Parishad vs Pradeep Bhaurao Pokale, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 244

Farukh Shah vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 245

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

Judgments/Final Orders:

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.

Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against AIMIM Leader Accused Of Illegally Constructing Public Square In Tipu Sultan's Name

Case Title: Farukh Shah vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 245

The Bombay High Court refused to quash an FIR registered against All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader and former MLA Farukh Shah accused of illegally constructing a public square in the name of Tipu Sultan in Dhule by allegedly utilizing public funds. In doing so the court observed that the probe was ongoing to find out as to who had erected the construction and whether permission was taken for the same adding underscoring that public square cannot be named by an MLA without following procedure laid down in law. It also noted that on one hand Shah defended the act of naming the square and on the other hand he was also claiming innocence which cannot go together.

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.

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.