High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. Rohit Sood
The Bombay High Court held that the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the original agreement governs the forum for challenging an arbitral award under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, and such challenge must be filed before the Courts at Mumbai as per the Arbitration Act.
Ajay S. Kathuria v. Jayesh Kumar & Co
The High Court held that a defendant's right to file a written statement within 120 days under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC cannot be forfeited solely due to non-payment of conditional costs, and directed the trial court to take the written statement on record.
Miloni Shah Nee Ramesh Vora v. Orbit Developers & Ors.
The Bombay High Court granted a summary decree for recovery of Rs. 2.00 crore with interest against defendants who failed to appear in a suit for refund of amounts paid for a commercial unit.
Hikal Limited v. Paxchem Limited
The Bombay High Court held that failure to serve fresh summons within the stipulated time does not mandate dismissal of a summary suit where the defendant has appeared, been served summons for judgment, and filed a reply.
Ramesh Nanalal Vora v. Orbit Developers & Ors.
The Bombay High Court granted summary judgment in favor of a Chartered Accountant for recovery of Rs. 1.20 crore with interest against developers who failed to appear and perform under a terminated MOU.
Sanjay Krushna Katkar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
The Bombay High Court held that appeals against bail orders under Section 14-A of the Atrocities Act lie before a Single Judge and that the Act applies to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe members irrespective of their State of origin, ensuring pan-India protection against atrocities.
The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal holding that commission payments made under valid agreements to unrelated agents for services rendered are allowable business expenditure and cannot be partially disallowed without valid evidence.
Vinay B. Poddar v. Jayesh Pandya & Ashok Banwarilal Gupta
The Bombay High Court dismissed review petitions challenging restoration of an appeal, holding that no error apparent on record justified review and upholding the exercise of judicial discretion in condoning delay.
Sandeep Sunil Kumar Lohariya v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the rejection of prosecution's belated application to produce additional evidence under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., holding that evidence known but omitted from the chargesheet cannot be treated as fresh and allowing it at a late stage prejudices the accused and violates fair trial principles.
Shri Suryakant Pandurang Holmukhe v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed the charge sheet under Section 306 IPC against accused for lack of proximate instigation to suicide and due to unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.
Kailash Patil v. Vasant S. Jadhav
The Bombay High Court allowed restoration of RERA appeals dismissed for non-filing of hard copies, holding that delay due to bonafide procedural confusion warrants leniency subject to strict costs and conditions.
Kailash Patil v. Vasant S. Jadhav
The Bombay High Court allowed restoration of RERA appeals dismissed for non-filing of hard copies after online filing, imposing strict costs and conditions due to inordinate delay in seeking restoration.
Arun Anshiram Dhotre & Ors. v. Union of India
The High Court allowed the appeal directing compensation to the deceased passenger's parents under the Railways Act, holding the death as an untoward incident attracting strict liability of the railway administration.
Avinash Madhukar Kharat v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that pre-deposit of 25% of the amount payable under Section 256 MLRC is not a precondition for filing or hearing an appeal under Section 247, and dismissed the impugned order rejecting the appeal for non-deposit.
Bhiwandi Powerloom Co-operative Society Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging the demand for extension fee under the 2019 Government Resolution, holding that the Petitioner is bound by the terms after availing extension benefits.
Chief Executive Officer, Sangli Zilla Parishad v. Maruti Pandurang Patil
The High Court held that an employee's voluntary admission of misappropriation in a departmental enquiry justifies dismissal and negates claims of unfair labour practice, allowing the writ petition and setting aside the Labour and Industrial Court orders.
Cosmos Constructions v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Thane
The Bombay High Court quashed a municipal reservation condition on the petitioner's land, holding that the reservation did not subsist under the sanctioned Development Plan modifications and directed approval of the petitioner's building proposals.
Mangesh Pandurang Bandagle v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court modified the appellants' conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, reducing their sentence accordingly.
The Commissioner of Income Tax v. APL Co. Pte. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court upheld the ITAT's ruling that shipping income under the India-Singapore DTAA is taxable only in Singapore without limitation under Article 24, relying on Singapore tax authority certification and established precedent.
Shreeji Realty v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
The Bombay High Court quashed the mandatory MHCC NOC condition for redevelopment in the Fort Heritage Precinct as arbitrary and discriminatory, directing issuance of full permissions without MHCC approval in violation of Article 14.