High Court of Bombay
4,240 judgments
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.
Rohit Dembiwal v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the classification of an IT Analyst as a supervisory employee, ruling he was not a 'workman' under labor laws and affirming the lawful termination by the employer.
Khalil Abbas Fakir v. Tabbasum Khalil Fakir @ Tabbasum Gulam Husain Ghare & Anr.
The Bombay High Court held that a divorced Muslim wife's entitlement to reasonable and fair maintenance under Section 3(1)(a) of the MWPA Act is not extinguished by remarriage and upheld the lump sum maintenance awarded against the husband.
Signpost India Private Limited v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award that rejected the petitioner's rebate claims and upheld the respondent's counterclaims for interest, RTO fees, and defacement charges, affirming the tribunal's contract interpretation and award.
Bank of Baroda v. Anil D. Ambani & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld an interim injunction restraining banks from acting on an invalid forensic audit report prepared by unqualified auditors, emphasizing strict compliance with RBI Master Directions and statutory auditor qualifications.
Priyanka Abhijeet Deodhare v. State of Maharashtra
Failure to furnish a copy of the requisition for a no-confidence motion to the Sarpanch under Rule 2(2) of the Maharashtra No Confidence Motion Rules does not invalidate a validly adopted motion passed by the requisite majority.
M/s Sky One Corporate Park LLP & Ors. v. Shobha Rasiklal Dhariwal & Anr.
The Bombay High Court held that execution proceedings under a Consent Decree are not arbitrable and dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of a belated Section 8 application seeking reference to arbitration.
Tata Communications Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that recognition by the employer is not required for a registered trade union's office bearers to be conferred 'protected workmen' status under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, dismissing Tata Communications Limited's challenge to the Regional Labour Commissioner's order.