The Bombay High Court delivered several key decisions between March 31 and April 6, 2025, across various legal sectors including commercial disputes, public interest litigation, tenancy laws, and fundamental rights. Here's a comprehensive overview of the significant rulings passed during this period.
Dabur India Ltd, in response to an order issued by the Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra, submitted an affidavit before the Bombay High Court stating that it will discontinue the use of labels such as “anti-inflammatory,” “anti-bacterial,” and “analgesic” on its toothpaste products. The Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna accepted the assurance and directed that starting from June 2025, Dabur must ensure that the said labels do not appear either on the product packaging or the products themselves.
In another development, the court emphasized the evolving concept of 24x7 retail operations and allowed a convenience store in Pune to function round the clock. The court noted, “The State, while aligning with global standards, has not imposed restrictions on the working hours of such retail stores.”
In a significant PIL, the court disposed of a plea demanding the implementation of state-level rules under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The government submitted that it has already framed the Maharashtra State Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2024, under Section 101 of the Act.
On the issue of burial rights, the court held that citizens do not have a fundamental right to be cremated or buried at a specific location. A Division Bench led by Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata ordered CIDCO to dismantle a crematorium built on land in Sector 9, Ulwe, Navi Mumbai, which was located near schools, residential complexes, and shops.
In the case of Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University Law School vs. State of Maharashtra, the court upheld the validity of a notice issued under the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik stated, “The Bar Council of India’s rules empowering it to inspect law colleges are not in violation of Article 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.” The court found the notice to be lawful and not arbitrary.
In Ambit Urbanspace vs. Poddar Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan ruled that tenants governed by the Rent Control Act cannot be evicted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially when they are not parties to the development agreement and not receiving upgraded accommodations. The court noted, “Protection under tenancy agreements cannot be overridden by arbitration provisions.”
In another case, Shahbaz Mumtaz Khan vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the court flagged concerns over a tender clause that gave preference to younger candidates over older ones in case of a tie-breaker. The court observed that such a condition was discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court also passed a crucial ruling concerning child paternity. The court remarked, “Even if the father is addicted to vices and has never seen the child, the mother cannot erase the father’s name from the child’s birth certificate to satisfy her ego.” A cost of ₹5,000 was imposed on the woman who made the request, reinforcing the importance of transparency in birth records.
In a blow to industrialist Anil Ambani, the court dismissed his plea for an urgent hearing against an April 2022 Income Tax Department notice. A Division Bench led by Justices Mahesh Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated, “This court cannot entertain a petition based on artificially created urgency.” The court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on Ambani.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan also directed the developer of Lodha World Towers to adhere to the agreed rate for Federation Common Area Maintenance (FCAM) charges until the arbitration process is completed.
Another important judgment came in the context of consumer protection. The court highlighted the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, saying, “The law is meant to protect untrained and unaware consumers from the consequences of unequal bargaining power.”
In a related arbitration case, the court held that an arbitrator must determine whether limitation is a mixed question of law and fact before addressing it as a preliminary issue.
The court also expressed dissatisfaction over the delay in the petition filed by gangster Abu Salem. The petition sought premature release from Taloja prison, where Salem is serving a life sentence for his involvement in the 1993 Mumbai blasts.
Meanwhile, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) informed the court that Dalit rights activist Dr. Anand Teltumbde is allegedly an active member of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and involved in activities threatening national security. Based on this, the NIA argued against his release.
In a petition opposing the setup of a municipal solid waste treatment plant near a school in Igatpuri’s Awalkheda village, the court orally observed, “We will not allow a dumping ground to come up next to a school.” The petition was originally filed in 2011 by the school and local panchayat.
Lastly, the court directed the Deputy Collector of Mumbai to decide on an application by a 70-year-old stateless woman who has lived in India for six decades and is now seeking Indian citizenship.
