Bombay Decisions : December 2025

 Bombay Decisions : December 2025

1. Dnyanoba v. Munja [2025] GCtR 1783 (Aurangabad, Bombay)

2. Dilip v. State of Maharashtra [2025] GCtR 1784 (Aurangabad, Bombay)

3. Unique Enterprises v. Union of India [2025] GCtR 1785 (Bombay)

4. New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Mukta [2025] GCtR 1786 (Aurangabad, Bombay)

5. Fahimoddin Fayjoddin Sayyed v. The State of Maharashtra [2025] GCtR 1787 (Aurangabad, Bombay)

6. Rajarshi Shahu Public School and Junior College v. State of Maharashtra [2025] GCtR 1799 (Kolhapur, Bombay) has dealt with the case where even after admitting adequate number of students under the 2009 Act and having imparted education to them respectively, the Petitioner was still deprived of the reimbursement of fees/expenses against such students U/s 12(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ; aggrieved by such delay, writ petition was filed.. It was held that if the respondent authorities merely sit over the claims, the very purpose of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 would indeed stand frustrated.

7. Jitendra Gorakh Megh v. Additional Collector and Appellate Tribunal [2025] GCtR 1811 (Bombay) has answered the question as  whether an eviction order can be passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWPSC Act, 2007) without any claim towards maintenance being made by the senior citizen?

It was held that Section 4 of the MWPSC Act, 2007 contains provisions dealing with the maintenance of parents and senior citizens. It prescribes that a senior citizen who is unable to maintain himself from his own earnings or from property owned by him, is entitled to make an application for maintenance under Section 5 of the Act. The said section further prescribes that the obligation of children to maintain the senior citizen extends to the needs of such senior citizen so that he may lead a normal life. Section 5 contains provisions relating to the application which the senior citizen can make for maintenance. Sub-section (2) enables the Tribunal to order monthly allowance to be paid to the senior citizen towards interim maintenance. In such circumstances, when the senior citizen has made no claim for maintenance, then how the said application which has been filed by the senior citizen under section 5(2) of the Act, is maintainable, in the first place. This position appears to have been completely overlooked, both in the eviction order and also in the appellate order. MWPSC Act, 2007 is a beneficial statute intended to safeguard the vulnerable (senior citizen), but it cannot be (mis) used by the senior citizen as a tool for summary eviction without the fulfilment of statutory requirements.

8. Lokranjan Breweries Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra [2025] GCtR 1826 (Bombay) has examined an issue of arbitrary action of State Government. It was seen that at first blush, the table extracted in this case would be suggestive of licence fees being chargeable at different rates for different components of the volume of production by CL-1 License holders. However, upon a careful review of the contents of the Notification, and the actual treatment given by the State to all CL-1 License holders, it is apparent that the State has charged all producers of above 10 lakh cases at the flat rate of Rs. 7 per case on the overall production. However, Lokranjan [Petitioner] came in for differential treatment only because its preceding three-year average production had been below 10 lakh cases.it became clear that the only reason for treating Lokranjan differently across all CL-1 Licence holders who had produced in excess of 10 lakh cases in 2016-17 was that, before the year began, Lokranjan had had an average production of below 10 lakh cases.Treating Lokranjan differently for no reason other than its earlier average production having been below 10 lakh cases is irrational, arbitrary and devoid of any intelligible differentiating characteristic. No such characteristic is stipulated in the Notification. Therefore, the treatment being given to the sole manufacturer (of that year) whose average was below the threshold of 10 lakh cases and whose actual production was in excess of such threshold, is liable to be interfered with as being arbitrary and not backed by any provision in the Notification or indeed by logic and reason.

9. CST v. Sudha Instant Soft Drinks and Essences [2025] GCtR 1831 (Bombay) has held that the word ‘fresh’ acts as a limitation. If the legislative intention was to include all types of fruits in every form—such as fresh, canned, preserved, and so on—under a single entry, then perhaps the Legislature would have used the term ‘fruits’. However, the inclusion of ‘fresh’ clearly shows an intention to exclude fruits that are not in their natural state, such as dried, frozen, canned, or preserved foods.