Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 15 - September 21, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 369 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 381]

Asian Paints Ltd. vs Competition Commission of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 369

Rajan Baburao Vichare vs Naresh Ganpat Mhaske, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 370

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 371

Rahul Pittu Savalkar vs Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 372

Molbio Diagnostics Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 373

Krishna Shantaram Chamankar vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 374

High Court of Judicature At Bombay On Its Own Motion vs Nilesh C Ojha, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 375

Romell Housing LLP vs Sameer Salim Shaikh, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 376

Classic Legends Pvt Ltd. vs Assessment Unit, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 377

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 378

Bharat Shatrughana Bhosale vs Divisional Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 379

Rupali Bapurao Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 380

Ashish Chandrakant Chauhan vs Mohini Mukesh Chauhan, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 381

Final Orders/Judgments

'No Inherent Right Of Hearing': Bombay HC Dismisses Plea Challenging CCI's Order To Probe Asian Paints For Alleged Abuse Of Dominance

Case Title: Asian Paints Ltd. vs Competition Commission of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 369

The Bombay High Court has held that a party has no inherent right of oral or written hearing at the stage where the Competition Commission of India (CCI) forms a prima facie opinion under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. The Court clarified that the order at this stage is administrative in nature, and whether to afford a hearing lies within the discretion of the CCI. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale was hearing a writ petition filed by Asian Paints Limited challenging the CCI's orders, whereby the CCI directed the Director General to investigate allegations made by Grasim Industries Limited that Asian Paints had abused its dominant position in the decorative paints market.

[Representation Of Peoples Act] 'Election Candidates Must Only Disclose Convictions Resulting In Imprisonment Of One Year Or More': Bombay HC

Case Title: Rajan Baburao Vichare vs Naresh Ganpat Mhaske

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 370

The Bombay High Court has held that election candidates are required to disclose only those convictions that have resulted in imprisonment of one year or more. The Court read down Entry 6 of Form 26 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, to bring it in line with Section 33A(1)(ii) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which mandates such disclosure. Single-judge Justice Riyaz Chagla was hearing applications filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 14 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the election petition filed against them. The petitioner had argued that the returned candidate failed to disclose his conviction in Form 26, thereby rendering his election liable to be set aside.

Relief For Bajaj Allianz As Bombay High Court Quashes State Notice Demanding ₹374 Crore For Crop Insurance

Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 371

The Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside notices issued by the Maharashtra government to Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Corporation (BAGIC) demanding it to pay Rs 374 crores to the farmers in Osmanabad for the loss of their soybean crops due to 'unseasonal rains' categorised as 'localised calamity' under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PM Yojna).

'Workers Can't Be Denied Permanent Status Merely Due To Unavailability Of Sanctioned Posts': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rahul Pittu Savalkar vs Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 372

The Bombay High Court has held that workmen who have completed the requisite period of continuous service cannot be denied permanent status merely on the ground that sanctioned posts are unavailable. The Court emphasised that such a denial would amount to continued exploitation of the workers, contrary to welfare legislation and the mandate of social justice.

S. 149 Income Tax Act | Reassessment Beyond Limitation Period Is Valid Where 'Bogus' Royalty Payments Exceed ₹50 Lakh: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Molbio Diagnostics Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 373

The Bombay High Court has stated that reassessment beyond 3 years is valid where bogus royalty expenses exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years, in the present case, where the alleged bogus royalty expenses exceeded 50 Lakhs. The bench opined that Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act is a jurisdictional fact which must be established prior to reopening of assessment on the ground that income has escaped assessment.

Maharashtra Sadan Scam: Bombay High Court Quashes ED's Money Laundering Case Against Chamankar Brothers

Case Title: Krishna Shantaram Chamankar vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 374

In a major relief to the Chamankar brothers, one of the prime accused in the Maharashtra Sadan Scam case involving State Cabinet Minister Chhagan Bhujbal, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 16) quashed the case lodged against them by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Rajesh Patil quashed the ED case lodged under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against Krishna and Prasanna Chamankar (both brothers) owning the KS Chamankar Enterprises, the contractor, who was accused of fraudulently obtaining the contract.

Bombay HC 5-Judge Bench Initiates Additional Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Lawyer For 'Scandalous' Remarks In Plea Against Judge

Case Title: High Court of Judicature At Bombay On Its Own Motion vs Nilesh C Ojha

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 375

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday initiated another suo motu criminal contempt of court case against advocate Nilesh Ojha, who made 'scandalous and scurrilous' allegations against a sitting judge, while defending himself in another criminal contempt of court case, which was initiated by a five-judge bench for levelling similar allegations against the same judge.

'Magistrate Not Required To Pass Preliminary Order U/S 145 CrPC When Inquiry Is Directed By HC Or SC': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Romell Housing LLP vs Sameer Salim Shaikh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 376

The Bombay High Court has held that where an inquiry under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 164 in the BNSS] is specifically directed by the High Court or the Supreme Court, the Magistrate is not required to pass a separate preliminary order under Section 145(1). The Court observed that in such cases, the satisfaction as to the existence of a dispute likely to cause breach of peace is already recorded by the higher court, and the Magistrate's duty is limited to conducting the inquiry as directed.

Income Tax Act | Draft Assessment Order Not Permissible U/S 144C(1) When TPO Makes No Variation: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Classic Legends Pvt Ltd. vs Assessment Unit

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 377

The Bombay High Court has held that a draft assessment order is not permissible under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act when the TPO (transfer pricing officer) makes no variation. Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides that the Assessing Officer should forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation of the income or loss returned is proposed to be made which affects the assessee negatively.

Income Tax Act | Payment To Consulting Doctors Appointed On Probation Is Not Salary; TDS Deductible U/S 194J, Not U/S 192: Bombay High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax vs Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 378

The Bombay High Court has held that payments to consultant doctors are not salary. Hence, TDS is deductible under section 194J and not under section 192 of the Income Tax Act. A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla stated that there does not exist an employer-employee relationship between the assessee and consultant doctors, and the payments made to them by the assessee come under the purview of section 194J of the Income Tax Act.

'Denial Of Hearing In Externment Proceedings Amounts To Violation Of Constitutional Values': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Bharat Shatrughana Bhosale vs Divisional Commissioner

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 379

The Bombay High Court has held that denial of an effective opportunity of hearing to a proposed externee under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, amounts to a violation of constitutional values and vitiates the entire externment proceedings. The Court observed that personal liberty guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed except by following due process of law, and externment orders passed mechanically and without application of mind cannot be sustained.

'Promise Of 10-15% Profit Per Month Shows Prima Facie Dishonest Intention': Bombay HC Declines Anticipatory Bail Plea In Trading Scam Case

Case Title: Rupali Bapurao Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 380

The Bombay High Court has held that an assurance of abnormally high and guaranteed profits in intra-day share trading demonstrates prima facie dishonest intention at the inception, thereby attracting criminal liability. The Court observed that no genuine business can yield assured profits of 10–15% per month, and such inducements cannot be brushed aside as mere civil disputes.

'Denying Residence To Brother's Wife In Shared Household Amounts To Domestic Violence': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ashish Chandrakant Chauhan vs Mohini Mukesh Chauhan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 381

The Bombay High Court has held that preventing a woman from residing in her shared household amounts to domestic violence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court emphasised that the right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the Act exists irrespective of any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

Other Developments:

2008 Malegaon Blast: Bombay High Court Questions Appeal By Victims Families, Asks If They Testified During Trial

While hearing the appeal filed by the victims of the 2008 Malegaon Blast, who have challenged the acquittal of former BJP MP Pragya Thakur, Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit and other accused from the case, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday clarified that it will entertain the plea only if the appellants have been witnesses in the trial. The appeal has been preferred by Nisar Ahmed Sayyed Bilal along with Shaikh Liyaqat Mohiuddin, Shaikh Ishaque Shaikh Yusuf, Usman Khan Ainullah Khan, Mushtaque Shah Haroon Shah and Shaikh Ibrahim Shaikh Supdo through advocate Abdul Mateen Shaikh.

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Against Release Of 'Jolly LLB 3', Says Judges Not Affected By Mockery

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a PIL which sought directions against release of the upcoming film "Jolly LL.B 3" on the ground that the film mocks the judiciary. The film is set to hit the theaters on September 19. Advocate for the Petitioner told the bench that the trailer of the film itself is objectionable as in one of the scenes, judges are called as "Mamus." "This is mockery of justice," he said. The bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, however, refused to consider this ground. It orally remarked,"We face the mocking right from day one of our judgeships. So don't worry, we are not affected."

Fraud Loan Accounts Row: Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief To Anil Ambani, Stays Coercive Action By Bank Of Baroda

In a temporary relief, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday restrained the Bank of Baroda from taking any coercive action in furtherance of its September 4 order classifying the loan accounts of industrialist Anil Ambani's Reliance Communications as 'fraud.' A division bench of Justices Riyaz Chagla and Farhan Dubash asked the Bank not to take any action till further hearing in the matter, which is slated to take place on September 24.

Six Additional Judges Of Bombay High Court Made Permanent

Six Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court on Thursday (September 18) were sworn-in as Permanent Judges after the Central Government approved their appointments last week. Justices Sanjay Deshmukh, Vrushali Jadhav, Abhay Mantri, Shyam Chandak, Neeraj Dhote and Somasekhar Sundaresan were administered oath of the office.

"Can't Permit Multiplicity": Bombay High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Against 'Kunbi' Status To Marathas

The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a Government Resolution (GR) issued by the Maharashtra Government to provide "Kunbi" caste certificates under the Other Backward Class (OBC) category to the members of Maratha Community, who identify themselves of having Kunbi origins.

Being 'Bright Student' No Grounds To Quash FIR: Bombay HC In Student's Plea Seeking Relief Over Allegedly Objectionable Post On Op Sindoor

The Bombay High Court on Friday orally remarked that it cannot quash an FIR lodged against a 19-year-old female engineering student for reposting an objectionable 'Operation Sindoor' post on social media, just because she has apologised, is a bright student or has passed her exams with "flying colours." A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad heard her petition seeking to quash the FIR lodged against her by the Pune Police in May this year.