High Court of Bombay

5,061 judgments

Year:

Sayeed Dabestani v. State of Maharashtra

· Prasanna B. Varale; V. G. Bisht

The Bombay High Court acquitted appellants convicted of murder due to failure of prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence murder Section 302 IPC chain of evidence

Dr. Swapnil Yuganand Hiwarale v. State of Maharashtra

· A.S. Chandurkar; G.A. Sanap

Admissions to postgraduate Ayurveda courses made without meeting CET eligibility criteria are void and cannot be regularised, but affected students are entitled to partial fee refund and compensation from the admitting colleges.

administrative petition_partly_allowed Significant Postgraduate Ayurveda Course Admission Regularisation Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions Act, 2015 Rules of 2016

Naresh Madhu Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra

· Prasanna B. Varale; Shrikant D. Kulkarni

The Bombay High Court modified the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(II) IPC, holding that the killing occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 304(II) IPC Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC culpable homicide

Pratibha Sanjay Padamalwar v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

· S. V. Gangapurwala; S. G. Chapalgaonkar
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld MCGM's policy limiting compassionate appointments to family members of medically invalidated employees below 50 years, dismissing the petition challenging the age restriction.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant compassionate appointment medical invalidation age limit Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Arun Sampatrao Patil v. Amruta Laxman Waghmare & Ors.

· Rajesh S. Patil; K. R. Shriram

The Bombay High Court held that an assignment of property made in violation of a court injunction during suit pendency is null and void, and the assignee cannot be impleaded in the appeal under Order XXII Rule 10 or Section 146 CPC.

civil petition_dismissed Significant assignment deed injunction order Order XXII Rule 10 CPC Section 146 CPC

Jamshid Kersi Dalal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

· Sunil B. Shukre; M.W. Chandwani

The Bombay High Court held that the State Government's sanction of a Draft Development Plan modification permitting a road through Green Belt land without following statutory procedure is illegal and quashed that modification while upholding others.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 Development Plan Green Belt Draft Development Plan

Salim Naim Khan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

· R.D. Dhanuka; M.M. Sathaye

The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of land acquisition for community purposes under the MRTP Act, dismissing petitions challenging the acquisition initiated at the instance of a private trust and emphasizing procedural compliance and public purpose.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 public purpose community centre

Maharani Ahilyadevi Samaj Prabodhan Manch, Maharashtra Rajya, Mumbai & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

· Kamal Khata J; GS Patel J

The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Presidential Order listing 'Dhangad' as a Scheduled Tribe, rejecting petitions seeking to substitute it with 'Dhangar' and clarifying the limited judicial role in interpreting such orders.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Scheduled Tribes Presidential Order 1956 Dhangar community Dhangad community

Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra

· Neela Gokhale; G. S. Patel · 2024:BHC-OS:5203-DB

The Bombay High Court upheld the State of Maharashtra's jurisdiction to levy stamp duty on documents related to imported goods cleared through customs, dismissing challenges to the levy as legally sustainable under the Maharashtra Stamp Act.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Stamp Act stamp duty customs clearance imported goods

Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors

· Neela Gokhale; G. S. Patel · 2024:BHC-AS:14713-DB

The Bombay High Court consolidated multiple writ petitions challenging the State of Maharashtra's administrative actions on stamp duties, customs, and port operations, holding that such actions must conform to statutory authority and principles of natural justice.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant writ petition administrative action stamp duty registration charges

Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors

· Neela Gokhale; G. S. Patel · 2024:BHC-AS:14705-DB

The Bombay High Court held that administrative actions by Maharashtra's registration, customs, and port authorities must adhere to statutory mandates and procedural fairness, quashing those beyond legal authority in consolidated writ petitions by corporate entities.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant writ petition administrative law registration and stamps customs

Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors

· Neela Gokhale; G. S. Patel · 2024:BHC-AS:14703-DB

The Bombay High Court held that the State of Maharashtra can validly impose stamp duty on transactions involving goods handled through customs and port authorities, subject to statutory compliance and absence of conflict with central laws.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant stamp duty registration charges customs port authority

Pawansingh Ambarsingh Janghale v. The State of Maharashtra

· Jitendra Jain; A. S. Chandurkar
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that the Supreme Court's Jarnail Singh decision impliedly overruled its earlier Vijay Ghogre judgment, validating reservation in promotion for SC/ST without quantifiable data and permitting supernumerary appointments pending final adjudication.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant reservation in promotion Article 16(4-A) Maharashtra Reservation Act 2001 Limited Departmental Competitive Examination

Ashok Mallinath Halsangi v. The State of Maharashtra

· A. S. Chandurkar; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court upheld the disqualification of candidates who submitted multiple applications for the same police constable driver post, affirming the clear prohibition in the recruitment advertisement and rejecting attempts to reinterpret its terms.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant recruitment advertisement multiple applications clause 11.10 disqualification

Bholenath Developers Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra

· M. S. Sonak; Arif S. Doctor

The Bombay High Court held that entitlement to incentive TDR arises only upon actual land surrender, dismissing the petitioners' claim based on their earlier application and ordering under prior regulations.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Transferable Development Rights TDR Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act Development Control Regulations

Pramila Kiran Mane v. Municipal Commissioner-Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

· Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld the entitlement of contract employees of Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation to salary at minimum pay scale equal to regular employees but denied their claim for permanency, affirming the principle of equal pay for equal work while recognizing the temporary nature of appointments.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant equal pay for equal work contract employees permanency minimum pay scale

Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. Commissioner of Police

· A. S. Gadkari; Shyam C. Chandak

The court held that use of loudspeakers in religious places must comply with noise pollution laws, police must enforce these laws protecting residents' fundamental rights, and religious freedom does not permit causing noise nuisance.

administrative other Significant Noise Pollution Loudspeakers Environment Protection Act, 1986 Noise Pollution Rules, 2000

Shri Vijay Deviprasad Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

· A. S. Gadkari; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court held that failure by authorities to acquire land within one year of purchase notice confirmation under Section 49(7) of the M.R.T.P. Act results in lapse of reservation, entitling the landowner to develop the land and quashed the impugned communication requiring fresh proposals.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act Section 49(7) purchase notice reservation lapse

Rajo Ransingh Tak v. Union of India & Ors.

· Abhay J. Mantri; Ravindra V. Ghuge

The Bombay High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging eviction orders against unauthorized occupants on railway land, holding that eviction under the Public Premises Act was lawful as petitioners failed to prove eligibility for rehabilitation benefits.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 Section 5A unauthorized occupation eviction

Sikandar Govind Kale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

12 Mar 5001 · Bharati Dangre; Manjusha Deshpande

The Bombay High Court allowed the petition of a poor convict to reduce default imprisonment for non-payment of fine to the period already served and ordered his immediate release, balancing statutory provisions with fundamental rights under Article 21.

criminal petition_allowed Significant default imprisonment fine Section 64 IPC Section 30 CrPC