High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that interest and penalty cannot be imposed on surcharge, additional duty equal to excise duty, and special additional duty under customs laws without explicit statutory authority, setting aside such impositions by the Settlement Commission.
M/s. Magnum Opus IT Consulting Private Limited v. M/s. Artcad Systems
The Bombay High Court held that the District Court has jurisdiction under Section 29-A of the Arbitration Act to substitute an arbitrator in MSMED Act arbitration proceedings and dismissed the writ petition challenging such substitution.
Yogesh Mahadev Dabhade v. The State of Maharashtra
The High Court modified the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC in a case of death caused in a sudden fight without premeditation.
Prakash Balasaheb Chavan v. Anand Raju Koppella
The Bombay High Court allowed a one-day extension for compliance with a consent order due to bona fide bank system failure, affirming the Court's inherent power to enlarge time even without the other party's consent.
Popat Bajirao Kotwal v. State of Maharashtra
The High Court partly allowed the appeal, convicting Appellant No.1 under section 307 IPC for attempt to murder and Appellant No.2 under section 324 IPC for causing minor injuries, modifying sentences accordingly.
Ramu @ Ramdas Rupaji Bhavar v. The State of Maharashtra
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 Part II IPC, holding the killing occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation.
Kishor Manohar Kamble & Meghraj Uttam Nimbalkar v. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Pune Municipal Corporation's correction of the Ambil Odha stream alignment as a draftsman's error under the sanctioned Development Plan, dismissing the petitioners' challenge for lack of locus and non-compliance with modification procedures under the MRTP Act.
M/s. Sanghvi Erectors Private Limited v. The State of Maharashtra
The High Court held that failure by the Municipal Corporation to acquire land within one year of the State Government's confirmation of purchase notice results in lapse of reservation, directing the State to notify the same under the MRTP Act.
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 v. Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal’s exclusion of investment banking companies as comparables and inclusion of consulting firms for transfer pricing of an investment advisory company, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal.
Sunil Gupta; Sandeep Gupta; Bharat Gupta v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.
The Bombay High Court upheld an ex-parte decree by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, holding that appearance through an advocate amounts to waiver of service of summons and petitioners failed to prove non-service or lack of knowledge.
Sunil Gupta; Sandeep Gupta; Bharat Gupta v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that service of summons is mandatory in DRT proceedings and appearance through an advocate does not waive this requirement, setting aside the ex-parte decree against petitioners for lack of proper service.
Tarulata Amritlal Bava v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a recovery certificate under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, holding that the statutory remedy of revision with mandatory pre-deposit must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction, even in cases alleging fraud.
The State of Maharashtra v. M/s. M.M. Sales Corporation
The High Court held that the Appellate Authority under the MVAT Act has plenary powers to consider additional claims not raised before the Assessing Officer, thereby upholding the Tribunal's allowance of the Respondent's claim based on 'C' forms filed at the appellate stage.
The Principal Commissioner of Central GST & C. Ex., Daman Commissionerate v. Filatex India Ltd.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the CESTAT order acquitting the manufacturer of clandestine removal of yarn, holding that no substantial question of law arose and the factual findings of the Tribunal were unimpeachable.
Mohammed Riyaz Shaikh v. Iresh Siddharam
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal against refusal of interlocutory relief, holding that a property transaction made in breach of a court injunction is invalid and that appellate interference with trial court discretion requires the order to be arbitrary or perverse.
Akshay @ Chhotya Kachar Jedgule v. The State of Maharashtra
The High Court set aside a murder conviction based solely on last seen together circumstantial evidence, holding that the accused's plausible explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. broke the chain of evidence and created reasonable doubt.
Sharad Darade v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR alleging conspiracy and harassment leading to a tribal MP's suicide, holding that the allegations lacked material to attract offences under IPC and the Atrocities Act and constituted abuse of process.
Dashrath Arun Sasane v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of the appellant for murdering his wife by setting her ablaze, relying primarily on credible dying declarations corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence.
M/s. Rudraksh Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Vimal Inter Trade Private Limited
The Bombay High Court held that a suit based on dishonored cheques is maintainable in the court where the cheques were delivered and dishonored, dismissing the petition challenging territorial jurisdiction.
Sanjeev Builders Private Limited v. Life Insurance Corporation of India
The Bombay High Court held that in suits for specific performance, evidence proving readiness and willingness to perform cannot be summarily excluded for going beyond pleadings and must be considered after full trial, allowing the appellants to lead their affidavit evidence subject to cross-examination.