Bombay High Court Monthly Digest - May 2025
The Bombay High Court delivered 70 judgments in May 2025. We bring you a comprehensive digest featuring concise summaries, along with statistics on the number of judgments authored by each judge.
Access the complete digest by clicking here
THAKUR INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS [WP/13976/2024]
Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice Makarand Subhash Karnik
The rejection of the technical bids submitted by Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. for two infrastructure tenders was deemed arbitrary and irrational. Thakur Infraprojects met the essential eligibility criteria, and the cited grounds for rejection, such as the foreign partner's non-signing of the integrity pact and certification issues, lacked validity. The decision-making process was considered unfair, as the concerns raised by Thakur Infraprojects regarding other bidders were not adequately addressed. Work orders to other successful bidders were quashed, and the tendering authority CIDCO was instructed to reevaluate the financial bids of Thakur Infraprojects and other eligible bidders.
M/S. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CITY-II, MUMBAI. [ITXA/416/2003]
Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice Makarand Subhash Karnik
The expenditure incurred by the assessee for its subsidiary, MMC, and the write-off of deposits and interest due from MMC were deemed allowable as business deductions under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as they were for commercial expediency to maintain business reputation. The Assessing Officer lacked the authority to question the accuracy of the profit and loss account prepared according to the Companies Act, as per Section 115J(1A) of the Income Tax Act. Rulings from prior cases established that scrutiny is limited to specified adjustments in the relevant section. The Tribunal's order was set aside in favor of the assessee.
THE MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS SARSWATI D/O. KESHAVRAO MAKNE [WP/1284/2025]
Bench: Justice A.S. Chandurkar, Justice M. M. Sathaye
Clause 5 of the government resolution dated 04/05/2023 was deemed unconstitutional for arbitrarily creating sub-classes within female candidates. The judgment is limited to the parties involved in the proceedings regarding Advertisement Nos. 83 of 2021, 107 of 2021, and 12 of 2022. Recruitments that commenced from 17/09/2021 remain undisturbed, as they were not addressed in the proceedings. An interim order from a separate writ petition was vacated.
Bench: Justice A.S. Chandurkar, Justice M. M. Sathaye
The mortgage deed executed by Benelon Industries in favor of Union Bank of India was deemed valid despite the lack of prior consent from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), which did not take steps to terminate the lease. MIDC's Regulations lacked a clear basis for imposing subletting charges; therefore, the requirement to pay these charges only applied from the time MIDC noticed the subletting until the auction sale. The argument regarding the bank's decree against the lessee being obtained through fraud was dismissed due to its previous omission. The decision overall upheld the DRAT's directions for dispute resolution among the parties.
MAHENDRASINGH DIGVIJAYSINGH MUKNE VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [WP/2727/2018]
Bench: Justice A.S. Chandurkar, Justice Rajesh S. Patil
The validity of Rule 4(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Transfer of Occupancy by Tribals to Non-Tribals) Rules, 1975 is upheld, which restricts the transfer of tribal occupancies to non-tribals for agricultural purposes. This restriction is linked to the objective of protecting the interests of tribals under Article 46 of the Constitution. Tribals can still transfer occupancies to other tribals or non-tribals for non-agricultural purposes. The argument regarding limitations on the Collector's discretion under Section 36A of the Code was rejected, affirming that the Collector retains full discretion to grant or deny sanction. The provisions are not considered manifestly arbitrary and have functioned effectively for decades. A writ petition challenging the validity of the rule was dismissed.
VAHBIZ PERVEZ DUMASIA VS NILOUFER PERVEZ DUMASIA [GP/8/2025]
Bench: Justice Abhay Ahuja
The High Court of Bombay has the authority to appoint guardians for mentally ill or incapacitated individuals, even without specific statutory provisions. Pervez Dumasia suffers from Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy, rendering him incapable of managing his affairs. This condition is categorized as "lunacy," allowing for the appointment of guardians. The petitioners were appointed as guardians of Pervez Dumasia's person and property, with the responsibility to manage his affairs and assets for his welfare.
Bench: Justice G. S. Kulkarni, Justice Advait M. Sethna
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 62.20 lakhs in compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased original claimant was upheld. The findings regarding the adequacy of medical bills, admissibility of the disability certificate, and the connection between the accident injuries and the claimant's death were affirmed. The claim was properly recognized as a death claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, as the claimant's death was linked to the injuries from the accident.
Bench: Justice G. S. Kulkarni, Justice Advait M. Sethna
The writ petition filed by the Vikas Education Society and Sunil Anandrao Babar is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution due to disputed questions of fact regarding the ownership and possession of the property where their laboratory building was located. The respondents claimed the building was on government land and that the petitioners were in unauthorized possession. The building was demolished due to being dilapidated and posing a safety hazard, as stated in a gram sabha resolution. These factual disputes cannot be resolved in a writ petition, and the petitioners are advised to seek remedies available under general law. The writ petition was rejected, allowing the petitioners to approach a civil court or pursue other legal remedies.
NEELKANTH HEIGHTS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOC AND ORS VS ABHINAV REAL ESTATE PVT LTD [WP/165/2025]
Bench: Justice Amit Borkar
The promoter's arguments for delaying the conveyance of property to the petitioner-Association, which includes three registered cooperative housing societies, are legally unsustainable. Claims that conveyance can be postponed until project completion, that the petitioner-Association was improperly formed, and that a previous court order affects the conveyance were rejected. A certificate of deemed conveyance in favor of the petitioner-Association will be issued, without affecting the respondents' rights to pursue civil claims in another forum.
Bench: Justice Amit Borkar
The order deregistering the petitioners' cooperative housing association was deemed legally unsustainable. The reliance on a contractual clause from flat purchase agreements was incorrect, as it cannot override the statutory rights under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Proof of fraud or misrepresentation, required for deregistration under Section 21A, was absent in this case. The formation of the cooperative housing association was a valid exercise of statutory rights.