High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Vishal Laxman Sakhare v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court set aside the disqualification of a Gram Panchayat member for alleged tax default, holding that liability rests with the property owner at the relevant time and emphasizing the application of Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality in administrative decisions.
Kalpana Madhu Gavali & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
The Bombay High Court allowed enhancement of compensation to the family of a deceased agricultural labourer in a motor accident by applying future prospects and increasing conventional heads, following Supreme Court precedents.
Play Games 24X7 Pvt. Ltd. v. Loran Leasing And Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted conditional leave to defend a summary suit for refund of security deposit delayed due to COVID-19 lockdown, rejecting the licensor's claim of forfeiture without adjudication.
Vaibhav Subhash Raut v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court granted bail to an accused under UAPA after prolonged incarceration and trial delay, emphasizing the balance between statutory restrictions and constitutional rights.
Unnat Nagar Division 3 Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the bifurcation of a cooperative housing society under Section 18 of the MCS Act, holding that substantial compliance with procedural requirements including consultation with the Federal Society validates the subdivision despite minor procedural deviations.
Vaman Prestressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court held that reopening income tax assessments under Section 147 requires a genuine reason to believe income escaped assessment, and interest on borrowed funds advanced interest-free to associate concerns is deductible if made as a measure of commercial expediency.
Neetu M. Chandaliya v. Income Tax Officer – 14(2)(3)
The Bombay High Court quashed reopening notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for lack of valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, emphasizing the AO's duty to apply independent mind and not act on mere suspicion or borrowed satisfaction.
Milind Dashrath Narvekar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that the State Government and MHADA cannot impose reservation and advertisement conditions on the allotment of land to a cooperative housing society of High Court employees after giving undertakings accepted by the Court, affirming the society's entitlement to full development potential on the allotted land.
Priyanka Rahul Patil v. Rahul Ravindra Patil
The Bombay High Court allowed transfer of divorce proceedings to the wife's local court, prioritizing her convenience and health over the husband's willingness to bear travel expenses.
Baburao Madahv Patil v. Shashikal Ramchandra Pimple & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the application for restoration of a civil application and refused stay of execution since the underlying second appeal was dismissed and not restored.
Jitendrakumar Jogendra Shahu @ Sahu v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court acquitted the appellants of murder and robbery charges due to insufficient circumstantial evidence and unreliable recoveries, emphasizing the necessity of a complete evidentiary chain to exclude all reasonable doubt.
The State of Maharashtra v. Amit Surendra Mittal
The Bombay High Court dismissed the State's appeal upholding acquittal due to failure to prove mandatory service of notice and ownership under section 53(1) of the MRTP Act.
Shri Chhatrapati Rajaram Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. The Municipal Corporation of City of Pune
The Bombay High Court held that a landowner is entitled to Transferable Development Rights for land reserved for a Development Plan road if no compensation has been paid and the land has not been declared a public street under Section 224 of the MMC Act.
Sayajirao Narayan Takwane v. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division
The Bombay High Court held that orders directing re-audit and auditor's findings are administrative and not subject to revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, setting aside the revision against the re-audit report and directing appeal against enquiry orders to be decided on merits.
Faizal Hasamali Mirza @ Kasib v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that the 90-day limitation period for appeals under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act is directory, allowing courts discretion to condone delay beyond 90 days upon sufficient cause, upholding the fundamental right of appeal under Article 21.
Tejashree Mangilal Dambale v. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee cannot reject a Validity Certificate granted to a blood relative without proof of fraud or jurisdictional defect and directed issuance of a Tribe Validity Certificate to the petitioner.
Jui Shivaji Sarjerao v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that the oldest historical entries showing the petitioner’s ancestors as belonging to the Thakar Scheduled Tribe must be accepted, setting aside the Scrutiny Committee’s order and directing issuance of a tribe validity certificate.
Shilpchintamani Co-operative Housing Soc. Ltd. v. Prasad Govindrao Jamdar
The Bombay High Court Full Bench upheld that a second revision application under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is not maintainable, affirming exclusive revisional jurisdiction and distinguishing conflicting Supreme Court precedents based on differing statutory language.
P. N. Gadgil & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that a petitioner is ineligible for the Sabka Vishwas Scheme benefit if the department has not quantified the duty payable before the cut-off date, and upheld rejection of the petitioner's application accordingly.
M/s. J.W. Marriott Juhu v. Nilesh Kanojia & Anr.
The High Court set aside the Labour and Industrial Court orders directing reinstatement of an employee dismissed for theft and misconduct, holding dismissal justified and awarding lumpsum compensation instead.