High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Samajik Vikas Prabhodini v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that writ petitions challenging reservation notifications for Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled Areas are maintainable before the High Court and not barred by the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Sandesh Baccharam Bhapkar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that only the Registrar or his delegate can disqualify elected cooperative society members under Rule 66, that delay in filing election expense accounts may be condoned upon valid justification, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration while recognizing the availability of revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act.
Mukesh Rajaram Chaudhari v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that non-compliance with Section 52A sampling procedure under the NDPS Act does not automatically entitle an accused to bail under Section 37, and rejected the bail application of the accused involved in commercial quantity narcotics seizure.
Abdul Rasheed alias Basheer v. Enforcement Directorate
The Bombay High Court quashed a 30-year-old COFEPOSA detention order due to inordinate delay and improper service, emphasizing the necessity of timely execution and meticulous procedural compliance in preventive detention cases.
Naresh Sundarlal Jain v. Udaipur Entertainment World Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the NCLT order vacating attachment under PMLA, holding that the statutory appeal under Section 61 of the IBC is the exclusive remedy and cannot be circumvented by writ jurisdiction.
Nitin Vikas Karake v. Mrs. Chetana Nitin Karake
The Bombay High Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Satara court to entertain a Domestic Violence Application, holding that the wife’s permanent residence was Satara despite her temporary stay in Pune on a leave and license basis.
Prema V. Shetty v. Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd.
The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award limiting compensation for illegal lease termination to three months, affirming that the claimant bears the onus to prove mitigation of damages and that courts cannot interfere with arbitral findings absent valid grounds under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Agarwal Associates & Agencies v. Vinay Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that acknowledgment in corporate balance sheets extends limitation, granted conditional leave to defend subject to deposit, and rejected the defendant's dismissal application in a commercial loan recovery suit.
Sai Chintan C.H.S.LTD. v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that a housing society has the right to develop its property through a new developer despite pending contractual disputes, directing the municipal corporation to process redevelopment plans without insisting on termination orders.
Kalyan - Dombivli Municipal Corporation v. Vijay Namdeo Jadhav
The Bombay High Court upheld the Labour Court's award directing reinstatement of a long-serving temporary employee terminated during judicial custody without due process, affirming his deemed permanency and right to back wages post acquittal.
Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Office of Insurance Ombudsman Mumbai & Goa
The Bombay High Court upheld the Insurance Ombudsman's award directing the insurer to pay a health insurance claim for accident-related disc prolapse surgery, rejecting the insurer's contention of a chronic condition exclusion.
CitiusTech Healthcare Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1)
The Bombay High Court held that reopening of income tax assessment based on a mere change of opinion without failure to disclose material facts is impermissible and quashed the reassessment notices and orders.
Shakuntala Karamveer Sarsath v. Atul Mohite & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging the lawful detention and rehabilitation of a beautician identified as a victim of prostitution, holding no violation of fundamental rights occurred.
Jyoti Sharadchandra Lohokare v. The Managing Committee, Shreeji Ville CHS Ltd. & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of a co-operative housing society's levy of charges for cultural activities approved by its General Body under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and bye-laws.
Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport v. BEST Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana
The Bombay High Court upheld the condonation of nearly six years' delay in filing a labour complaint by casual workers, emphasizing a liberal approach to delay and directing adjudication on merits.
Haresh Vijaysinh Bhatia & Ors. v. Vijay-II Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Competent Authority's order granting unilateral deemed conveyance including Wing-D to Vijay-II CHS, holding that the fresh application was maintainable and the Authority acted within its jurisdiction under MOFA.
Kamla Industrial Park Ltd & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that the MCGM cannot impose a regularization penalty on a corporate debtor post-IBC resolution plan approval if such penalty was not claimed during insolvency, emphasizing extinguishment of prior liabilities and municipal inaction.
Kamla Industrial Park Ltd v. Ramchandra Sankpal
The Bombay High Court held that the MCGM cannot impose a regularization penalty on a corporate debtor post-IBC resolution plan approval if the penalty claim was not included in the plan, emphasizing municipal inaction and the 'clean slate' principle under the IBC.
Mustafa Ibrahim Nadiadwala & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed land acquisition proceedings and restored possession of the petitioners' 50% share in the land, relying on the Supreme Court's prior ruling that non-compliance with Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act renders acquisition null and void.
Mahesh Sitaram Raut v. National Investigation Agency & State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court granted bail to the appellant accused under the UAP Act, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against him beyond hearsay evidence and prolonged pre-trial detention warranted bail.