High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Dattatraya Mahadev Ugale & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The High Court held that an order under Section 81(3)(c) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act is administrative and not amenable to revision under Section 154, quashing the stay granted on the test audit order.
M/s. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Limited v. M/s. Haldyn Glass Works Private Limited
The Bombay High Court upheld the insurer's liability under consequential loss policies for damage caused by malicious acts of striking workers but set aside the grant of actual costs for non-compliance with applicable court rules.
Manik Chandru Deokar v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that cancellation of rehabilitation land allotment for non-construction of a house within one year is arbitrary and without jurisdiction, and directed allotment of the balance land to the displaced petitioner.
Dr. Sachin Prabhu Pawar v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the appointment of respondent no. 3 as Returning Officer for MMC elections, holding her rank equivalent to Under Secretary and dismissing the petition challenging the election process.
L & T Finance Limited v. Diamond Projects Limited; Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd v. Signy Technologies Pvt Ltd; Vedaang Builders LLP v. Ashwinkumar Liladhar Shah; Spenta Vintage Pvt Ltd v. Evershine No.II CHS Ltd; Manish Sheth v. Ketan Sheth
The court held that despite an arbitration agreement being unstamped and thus unenforceable under the Stamp Act, interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act can still be granted pending payment of stamp duty.
Michael Onyeka Jude v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Anr.
The Bombay High Court upheld the order permitting retesting of seized narcotic samples during investigation under the N.D.P.S. Act, holding that such retesting is allowed within prescribed guidelines and does not violate the accused's rights.
Santosh Motiram Pisat v. Smt. Sumitra Mohanlal Lain & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that Rent Courts have jurisdiction to entertain composite suits for recovery of possession and injunctions related to tenanted premises, overruling the appellate court's order directing separate forums.
Baburao Shivputra Erandole & Ors v. Kumar Adwait Nikhil Erandole & Ors
The High Court held that a coparcener cannot obtain a blanket injunction restraining alienation of joint family property during a partition suit, modifying the trial court's order to a limited injunction protecting specific land.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Manakchand Laxman Baheti
The High Court upheld the disciplinary action against a Chartered Accountant for professional misconduct in issuing unverified certificates, reprimanding him to maintain professional integrity and public confidence.
Monica Sagar Kate & Anr v. The Joint Registrar & Ors
The High Court held that summary recovery proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act cannot decide disputed factual issues like genuineness of 'No Dues Certificates' and Release Deeds, which must be adjudicated by the Cooperative Court under Section 91.
Monica Sagar Kate & Anr v. The Joint Registrar & Ors
The High Court held that summary recovery proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act are inappropriate for disputed loan repayment claims involving 'No Dues Certificates' and Release Deeds, which must be adjudicated by the Cooperative Court under Section 91.
Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati v. Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a petitioner who commenced construction within five years under a 2010 NOC is entitled to revalidation without reassessment under the 2015 Rules, quashing refusal letters and directing reconsideration accordingly.
M/s. Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Private Limited v. Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property of India
The Bombay High Court held that the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property lacks jurisdiction to issue directions prohibiting transfer or construction on properties not yet vested in the Custodian under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and set aside such communications and consequential orders.
Appasaheb Pandurang Yadav & Ors. v. Appasaheb Virupaksh Tandale & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s refusal to condone delay in filing tenancy appeal, affirming that termination of tenancy under section 25(1) is valid without three separate notices and emphasizing finality over meritless prolonged litigation.
Union of India v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that Ministry of Defence circulars requiring NOC do not apply retrospectively to constructions permitted before 2011 and that such circulars lack statutory force to restrict property rights without legislative backing, dismissing the petition to quash construction permissions near a Defence Establishment.
Agri Sprayers T.I.M Association v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the State Government's Special Action Plan procurement scheme, dismissing challenges based on the earlier DBT scheme and penalizing petitioners for abuse of process.
Harshada Sawant v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that testamentary disposition under a Will is not a transfer attracting unearned income levy, and conversion charges must be calculated based on the date of application, quashing demands based on outdated policies and later market values.
Syamala Raghunathan v. Srinivasan Vatsala
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of a holograph Will executed by the testatrix in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, rejecting challenges on mental capacity and undue influence.
Sunil Achyutrao Thete v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be granted by the competent authority after independent application of mind, and quashed the prosecution where sanction was issued mechanically under external dictation.
Jibhau Sukhdev Deore & Ors. v. Vishwas Ramchandra Dighavkar & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that correction of land consolidation schemes involving reallocation of land area is governed by Section 32 and must be sought within a reasonable time, dismissing a petition filed after 50 years as time barred.