High Court of Bombay
5,131 judgments
Shri Ashok Bapu Kamble v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Kolhapur Division
The High Court set aside the Industrial Court’s judgment upholding departmental enquiry findings against a driver, holding the enquiry findings perverse due to reliance on unexamined police evidence and lack of proof of rash driving.
Sulzer Pumps India Private Limited v. Jayendra Arun Jog
The Bombay High Court upheld the Industrial Court's finding that the employee was a workman and quashed his transfer as mala fide and an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union Act, 1971.
Makersburry India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed the cancellation of GST registration due to defective show cause notice and non-application of mind by authorities, restoring the petitioner’s registration and directing adherence to due process in future proceedings.
M/s. Apna Chemist v. Assistant Commissioner (Zone-3)
The Bombay High Court held that the appellate authority must expeditiously hear and decide appeals against license suspension orders and stay such suspensions pending appeal to ensure effective remedy and protect fundamental rights.
M/s. Apna Chemist v. Assistant Commissioner (Zone-3)
The Bombay High Court held that appellate authorities must expeditiously hear appeals and grant interim relief against license suspension orders under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules to ensure effective remedy and protect fundamental rights.
M/s. Apna Medical LLP v. Assistant Commissioner (Zone-3)
The Bombay High Court held that the appellate authority must expeditiously hear appeals and grant interim relief against license suspension orders under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules to ensure effective remedy and protect fundamental rights.
Achyut Shridhar Godbole v. Pravin Vikkram Satra
The Bombay High Court held the Respondent guilty of contempt for willful violation of court undertakings and directions in a prolonged real estate possession dispute, rejecting limitation and impossibility defenses, and emphasized the need for punishment and purging of contempt.
Fayzan Khan and Ors. v. Superintendent of Land Records and Ors.
The High Court upheld the refusal to grant leave under Section 91(1)(b) CPC for a suit alleging wrongful acts affecting public interest, holding the dispute was private and did not warrant public interest litigation.
Palghar Taluka Industrial Federation v. Sadanand Dadu Bhoir
The court held that disciplinary termination is not retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and an employer can justify termination without prior inquiry by adducing evidence before the Labour Court, remitting the matter for fresh adjudication.
Neelam Nitin Sampat v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that illegal arrest and detention in bailable offences violates Article 21, awarded compensation, and directed inquiry against errant police officers.
Bond Safety Belts v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court allowed the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against short term capital gains, overruling the ITAT and affirming the Finance Act, 2001 amendment and CBDT Circular No. 14 of 2001 permitting unrestricted carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation under any income head.
Dolby Builders Private Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
The Bombay High Court held that Ministry of Defence circulars imposing construction restrictions near Defence Establishments without following the Works of Defence Act, 1903 procedure are ultra vires, invalidating the requirement of NOC from Defence authorities for development permission.
SNV Aviation Private Limited v. Capt. Gareema Kumar
The Bombay High Court held that part of the cause of action arising from employment contract disputes occurred within Mumbai, granting leave to sue despite defendants' objections to jurisdiction.
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.