High Court of Bombay
5,131 judgments
The Pashmina Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Latif Mohamed Hassambhoy & Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal, holding that restrictive covenants limiting construction height are enforceable only if they secure beneficial enjoyment of adjoining property, and dismissed the suit for failure to prove such harm.
General Motors Employees Union v. General Motors India Private Limited
The Bombay High Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's Award permitting General Motors India to close its Talegaon plant, holding that timelines under Section 25-O are directory and substantial accumulated losses justify closure.
Central Bureau of Investigation v. R. Bhuvaneswari & Anr.
The High Court held that sanction for prosecution once refused by the competent authority on given materials cannot be reconsidered without fresh evidence, and accordingly upheld discharge of accused for lack of valid sanction.
Elster Instromet B.V. v. Mrunal Gandhi
The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral injunction enforcing a non-compete clause against a joint venturer and its affiliates, applying partnership principles to sustain obligations beyond the contract term.
Dilip Rangnath Nalwad v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that limitation for filing an Original Application before the Administrative Tribunal must be calculated from the last representation and set aside the Tribunal's dismissal on limitation grounds, remitting the matter for merits consideration.
Shrikant Annappa Shinde & Ors. v. Khiraling Basavannappa Shingshetty & Ors.
The High Court dismissed the appeal holding that hypothecation of a vehicle with a bank does not shift insurance liability to the bank, and the vehicle owner remains liable for compensation.
Nandkishor Eknath Kothawade v. State of Maharashtra
The High Court held that once a Magistrate takes cognizance and examines the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., ordering investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and registration of FIR is illegal and quashed the impugned order and FIR.
Ashwini Kumar Sharma v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court allowed a physically disabled accused to attend the pronouncement of judgment via video conferencing, balancing procedural requirements with the accused’s medical condition.
Zeba Mohasin Pathan v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that under the DV Act, a mother-in-law can file a complaint against her daughter-in-law, but the father and brother of the daughter-in-law do not fall within the Act's definition of 'respondent' and thus the complaint against them is not maintainable.
Rajeev Kumar Damodarprasad Bhadani & Ors. v. The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that MSEDCL's possession of land for an electricity sub-station without complying with land acquisition laws and paying compensation is unlawful, and electricity regulations do not override land acquisition statutes.
Santosh Kantilal Kharva v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court reduced the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC for a killing in a sudden fight without premeditation.
wp17582023 4fb309b3
The High Court held that eviction orders under Section 81-B of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act require a reasoned quasi-judicial inquiry with evidence and fresh show-cause notice, setting aside unreasoned orders based on invalid notices.
Dattatray Gopal Mhatre v. Neerabai Tukaram Mhatre
The Bombay High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding that no partition occurred between mother and daughter and that the registered Will executed by the mother was invalid due to unexplained suspicious circumstances, thereby affirming the plaintiff's sole ownership and possession of the suit properties.
Mangala Sarosh Bana v. Renuka alias Rekha Satish Narwankar
The Bombay High Court dismissed the application seeking modification of its order granting Letters of Administration with Will annexed, holding that prior consent to equal distribution cannot be retracted without error or fraud.
Vinayak Uttam Hirave v. Ideal College of Law & Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed a law student's petition to complete his LL.B. course, holding that a belated eligibility objection by the University after admission and substantial course completion is unsustainable.
Anita Sudam Ahire v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
The High Court quashed the complaint against the second wife and her father for offences under Section 494 read with Section 109 IPC, holding that mere solemnisation of a second marriage without specific allegations of abetment does not constitute an offence.
Ashish Bharat Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra
The High Court acquitted appellants of murder and related charges due to failure of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting unreliability of eyewitness testimony and doubtful recovery evidence.
Mahesh Vinayak Patil v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that customers found with victims in brothels cannot be prosecuted under Sections 3 to 5 of the PITA and allowed discharge of the accused in absence of sufficient incriminating material.
Vijay Lakhi; Chandra Sabhani; Suresh Nichani; Ramesh Khushlani v. Minister of Co-operation; Divisional Joint Registrar; District Deputy Registrar; Purshottam Bhagwan CHS Ltd.; Dinesh Bhavani; Anil Bhatija Bhavani; Jairam Mulchandani; Haresh Udasi; Delishi
The Bombay High Court upheld the Registrar's dissolution of a cooperative society's managing committee due to loss of quorum, clarified the prospective effect of a government resolution on quorum, and emphasized that appointment of authorised officers under Section 77A is a last resort requiring procedural safeguards.
Bhupendra Villa Premises Co-operative Society Limited v. The Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that a 999-year lease confers ownership rights over buildings constructed by lessees, and the Railway's refusal to grant redevelopment permission was arbitrary and unlawful, directing issuance of the NOC subject to compliance with original building lines.