Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 22 - September 28, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 382 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 390]

NHS vs ANS, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 382

Surendra vs Agrofab Machineries Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 383

Yashwant Anna Bhoir vs State of Maharastra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 384

State Of Goa vs Unique Identification Authority of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 385

Khyyum Khadir Patwari vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 386

Hikal Limited vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 387

VVB vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 388

Shivranjan Towers Sahakari Griha Rachana v Bhujbal Constructions, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 389

Vyom Dipesh Raichanna vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 390

Judgments/Final Orders:

Husband Entitled To Divorce Over Non-Disclosure That Wife Suffers From Incurable Disease: Bombay High Court

Case Title: NHS vs ANS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 382

The Bombay High Court, while dissolving a marriage, held that if a spouse suppresses a fact that she suffers from an incurable disease like "cerebral palsy" before marriage, that can be a ground for the other spouse to seek divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. A division bench of Justices Nitin Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar More decided the appeal filed by a husband, who challenged the judgment of a Family Court, which, by an order passed on August 17, 2023, dismissed his plea seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty.

Employee Need Not Deposit Retrenchment Compensation As Pre-Condition To Challenge Termination: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Surendra vs Agrofab Machineries Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 383

The Bombay High Court has held that an employee cannot be compelled to deposit the amount of retrenchment compensation as a condition for challenging his retrenchment. The Court observed that retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a statutory right of the employee and is intended to provide subsistence during unemployment. Making its deposit a precondition for litigation may force employees to withdraw challenges due to financial hardship.

Building Proposals Should Only Be Granted After Municipal Infrastructure Is Built, Deficient Amenities Affect Fundamental Rights: Bombay HC

Case Title: Yashwant Anna Bhoir vs State of Maharastra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 384

The Bombay High Court has expressed deep concern over the lack of civic infrastructure and systematic planning in the Kulgaon-Badlapur Municipal area and directed the constitution of an Improvement Committee to provide recommendations for urban development. The Court held that improper planning and deficient civic amenities directly affect the fundamental rights of citizens to a clean and healthy environment, as guaranteed under the Constitution.

Providing Identity, Birth Proof Of Person To Police Doesn't Amount To Disclosure Of Personal Information: Bombay High Court

Case Title: State Of Goa vs Unique Identification Authority of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 385

The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that providing demographic information with regard to the proof of identity (POI), proof of birth (POB), and the proof of address (POA) of an individual to the police does not result in disclosing personal information. Single-judge Justice Valmiki Menezes was hearing an application filed by the State of Goa seeking a direction to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIADI) to disclose the demographic information pertaining to one Yaniv Benaim @ Atala, an Israeli national, who secured an Aadhar Card despite being a foreigner and that too without providing any valid documents.

'Abusing Community Leader Not Insult To Religion': Bombay High Court Quashes FIR U/S 295A IPC For Insulting Maratha Leader Manoj Jarange

Case Title: Khyyum Khadir Patwari vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 386

A person may represent a religion in certain ways but s/he does not become a 'religion' himself, the Bombay High Court observed while holding that any abuse or use of disrespectful words for a socio political figure cannot be equated with insult to faith. A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten Venegavkar, sitting at Aurangabad, quashed an FIR lodged against a man, booked for hurling abuses at Maratha leader and activist Manoj Jarange-Patil, who has been spearheading the protests for the reservation for the community.

Pending Proceedings Under Omitted CGST Rules 89(4B) & 96(10) Lapse In Absence Of Savings Clause: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Hikal Limited vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 387

The Bombay High Court has held that all pending proceedings under the omitted CGST Rules 89(4B) & 96(10) lapse in the absence of a savings clause. The bench agreed with the assessee/petitioners that the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act are not attracted and therefore the pending proceedings can claim no immunity or protection.

Wife Cannot Be Disentitled From Claiming Right In Husband's Family Pension Merely On Allegations Of Adultery: Bombay High Court

Case Title: VVB vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 388

In a significant order, the Bombay High Court on Friday held that merely levelling allegations of "adultery" against a woman cannot disentitle her from claiming a right in her deceased husband's family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (MCSR). A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Yanshivraj Khobragade therefore, refused to grant any relief to the brother and mother of a deceased man, who was living separately from his wife after accusing her of adultery.

Individual Flat Owners Forming Cooperative Society Are Bound By Arbitration Clause Contained In Sale Agreement: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shivranjan Towers Sahakari Griha Rachana v Bhujbal Constructions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 389

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice NizamoodinJamadar has observed that when individual flat owners form a cooperative society to enforce rights created in favour of the individual members under the Agreements for Sale, the society cannot claim that it is not bound by the arbitration clause contained in those Agreements. The argument that it is not a signatory to the Agreements for Sale is untenable and such society is not a third party to the arbitral proceedings.

Denial Of Re-Testing Of Seized Goods Must Be Occasional And Recorded In Writing: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vyom Dipesh Raichanna vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 390

The Bombay High Court has held that re-testing of seized goods is a trade facilitation measure, not to be denied in the ordinary course. A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Advait Sethna stated that "...Ultimately, such denial must be only occasional and that too, on reasonable grounds to be recorded in writing. The guidelines emphasised that this facility of re-testing is nothing but a trade facilitation measure, which, generally, will not be denied in the ordinary course…"

Other Developments:

Bombay High Court Questions Maintainability Of PIL Seeking FIR Against Raj Thackeray & Derecognition Of His Party

The Bombay High Court on Monday questioned the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking registration of FIR against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray and his party workers and even derecognition of his party for allegedly assaulting Hindi speaking citizens and imposing Marathi on them. A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad asked the petitioner Ghanshyam Upadhyaya to first satisfy the court on the issue of maintainability of the PIL petition.