The Bombay High Court has allowed a Uttar Pradesh-based popcorn maize seller to continue business in a trademark dispute with SNN (Sabhajit Naranjandas Merchant) by lifting an interim injunction.

The single bench observed insufficient evidence of brand confusion or passing off, highlighting the significant geographical separation and distinct market presence between the parties.

The Court set aside the injunction and directed the matter back to the District Court for a fresh hearing, ensuring that the small business could operate while the dispute was adjudicated.

[SNT and Company v. M/S Shah Nanji Nagis Exports Pvt. Ltd]

The Bombay High Court rebuked the Assessing Officer of the National Faceless Assessment Centre for relying on three non-existent, AI-generated judicial precedents while issuing a ₹27.91-crore tax demand.

The Division Bench observed that blind reliance on Artificial Intelligence in quasi-judicial proceedings violated natural justice.

The Court held that the officer ignored the taxpayer’s detailed responses and fabricated precedents to justify additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Court remanded the matter, directing the officer to issue a fresh show-cause notice, ensure a personal hearing, and verify all cited authorities before passing a speaking order.

[KMG Wires Private Limited v National Faceless Assessment]

The Bombay High Court ruled that restaurants and cafés may serve hookah, provided it contains no tobacco or nicotine. The Bench clarified that herbal or tobacco-free hookah is permissible if establishments comply with the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2023.

The Court directed that enforcement action may be taken only when prohibited substances are used and solely by officers of at least Assistant Police Inspector rank.

The clarification followed complaints by restaurant owners alleging police harassment despite serving only tobacco-free hookah.

[Munib Birya v State of Maharashtra]

The Bombay High Court has clarified that the grounds for revoking or annulling a probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, are illustrative and not exhaustive.

The Court held that limiting “just cause” only to the enumerated grounds would defeat the provision’s purpose of ensuring fairness and preventing fraudulent or unjust probate grants, as a narrow interpretation would undermine its objective.

The Court further concluded that courts possess wide discretion to determine “just cause” based on the unique factual context of each case, ensuring flexibility in adjudication and preventing injustice arising from rigid statutory interpretation.

[Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary v. Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka]

The Bombay High Court set aside the arbitral tribunal’s award of ₹75 lakh compensation to Kanti Beverages Pvt. Ltd. against Hersheys India Pvt. Ltd., calling it “picked virtually out of the hat.”

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the tribunal’s reasoning lacked any factual or contractual basis, as the manufacturing agreement for the Jumpin beverage brand expired on December 6, 2007, without renewal or wrongful termination.

Despite rejecting Kanti’s claims, the tribunal had inexplicably granted compensation based on Hershey’s silence during renewal discussions.

The Court ruled that such compensation “shocked the conscience,” observing that no payment could arise without a valid contractual extension.

[Hersheys India Pvt Ltd v Kanti Beverages Pvt. Ltd.]

The Bombay High Court declined to grant an unconditional stay on the ₹250.82 crore arbitral award rendered in favour of L&T-STEC JV against the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) 

The dispute arose from the Mumbai Metro tunnel and station construction. The tribunal awarded ₹229.56 crore GST and ₹21.26 crore for additional works; MMRCL challenged it as perverse, seeking an unconditional stay.

The Court, finding no apparent perversity, held that a stay would operate only upon deposit of the entire amount with interest within eight weeks.

[Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. L&T-STEC JV, Mumbai].

The Bombay High Court has imposed a ₹50,000 cost on Shripal Sevantilal Morakhia for filing a writ petition against an NCLT order despite his appeal being pending before the NCLAT.

A Bench of Justices R.I. Chagla and F.P. Dubash held that the plea was not maintainable since the NCLT’s order had only been reserved and not pronounced. The Court said the petitioner tried to bypass the statutory appellate process and misuse writ jurisdiction.

The Court, noting that he persisted with arguments despite being informed of the petition’s non-maintainability, directed the cost to be paid to the Indian Red Cross Society, Mumbai.

[Shripal Sevantilal Morakhia v NCLT]

The Bombay High Court has ordered WhiteHat Education Technology Pvt Ltd (WhiteHat Jr), a Byju’s subsidiary, to secure an arbitral award of ₹80.35 lakh granted to its former employee, Prashant Singh.

The award, passed on June 30, 2025, by arbitrator Nandini Singh Modi, related to unpaid salary and incentives.

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan noted that Byju’s parent entity was undergoing insolvency proceedings, creating uncertainty over payment.

The Court directed WhiteHat Jr to either deposit the amount or furnish a bank guarantee and disclose its assets to ensure enforcement of the award.

[Prashant Singh v Whitehat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd and ors]

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that borrowers or guarantors cannot claim a One-Time Settlement (OTS) as an enforceable right against banks.

The Court, while hearing a plea filed by the director of N Kumar Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., upheld the Indian Bank’s decision to reject her OTS proposal.

The Court clarified that courts cannot compel banks to disclose their internal criteria or benchmarks for considering settlements, and noted that such decisions fall within the commercial discretion of banks, not judicial oversight.

[Archana Wani v Bank of India]

The Bombay High Court fined a litigant ₹50 lakh for concealing key facts to secure an early injunction in a trademark dispute.

Justice Arif S. Doctor found that the plaintiff’s trademark registration applied only to Maharashtra but sought a pan-India ban. The plaintiff also hid the defendants’ prior use of the mark since April 2022 and their pending challenge before the Trademark Registry.

Terming the conduct a “fraud upon the Court,” Justice Arif S. Doctor directed that ₹25 lakh each be paid to two defendants within four weeks.

[Shoban Salim v Chaitanya Arora]

The Bombay High Court granted urgent ad-interim relief to Generali Central Life Insurance Company Limited after it suffered a ransomware attack allegedly by a hacker group identifying itself as “Medusa”. 

Justice Arif S. Doctor directed the Union of India and the Department of Telecommunications to immediately block and disable all accounts, domains, and communication channels linked to the breach, noting that public disclosure of Generali’s confidential data would have “overwhelming” consequences.

The Court restrained the unidentified hacker, impleaded as John Doe, from publishing, selling, or disseminating the stolen data and ordered DoT to ensure prompt compliance.

[Generali Central Life Insurance Company Limited v Union of India]

The Bombay High Court has held that the preferential right to purchase property under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act applies not only to immediate heirs but also to co-parceners.

The ruling came in a dispute where three brothers opposed the sale of joint family property by their uncles and step-brothers to outsiders.

The Court permitted the brothers to exercise their right to purchase, instructing them to deposit the price along with 6% simple interest from 31 December 1992 within 90 days if they had not paid earlier.

[Thukaram  Haribhau]

The Bombay High Court granted an ex parte injunction protecting actor Akshay Kumar’s personality rights after AI-generated deepfake videos using his likeness surfaced online.

Justice Arif S. Doctor noted that the impersonation was of “alarming realism,” making it difficult to distinguish from genuine content, as the clips falsely portrayed the actor making political and offensive remarks, causing public confusion and reputational harm.

The court restrained unknown persons (John Doe) and online platforms from sharing such content, holding that unauthorised use of his image, voice, or persona violates publicity and moral rights and endangers personal safety and public order.

[Akshay Kumar v John Doe and Ors]

Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty and her husband Raj Kundra have withdrawn their petition before the Bombay High Court seeking permission to travel abroad.

The couple had asked for the revocation of a Look Out Circular issued against them in a ₹60 crore fraud case.

The Court had directed them to first deposit the amount involved for their plea to be considered.

The FIR was filed by businessman Deepak Kothari, who alleged that the couple borrowed over ₹60 crore for business expansion but failed to return it.