High Court of Bombay
5,131 judgments
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.
Smt. Rekha Manohar Ghansharamani & Ors. v. Janardhan Prasad Chaturvedi & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the partnership dissolved on a partner's death and the suit challenging sale agreements was barred by limitation.
Hemant Dinkar Kandlur v. Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court held that the 2014 amendment restricting capital gains exemption under Section 54(F) to properties purchased 'in India' is prospective and does not apply to investments made abroad before 1st April 2015, allowing the petitioner’s claim.
Meeti Developers Private Limited v. New Kamal Kunj Co-operative Housing Society Limited
The Bombay High Court upheld the housing society's termination of the development agreement with Meeti Developers due to defaults and refused interim relief to the developer, allowing the society to proceed with redevelopment through other means.
Undercarriage and Tractor Parts Pvt. Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Panel – 3
The Bombay High Court held that the Dispute Resolution Panel has no jurisdiction to issue directions after the Assessing Officer passes the final assessment order, quashing the DRP's directions and consequent assessment order.
Nandu Maruti Pol v. Satishkumar Satyanarayan Agarwal
The Bombay High Court held that the executing Court erred in granting extension of time for deposit of balance consideration after an inordinate delay without sufficient explanation, and quashed the order allowing such extension in a specific performance decree execution.
The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nashik v. Balu Baburao Dhanwate; The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nashik v. Dadasaheb Gangadhar Shete
The Bombay High Court upheld the reinstatement of Muster Assistants terminated without statutory compliance, affirming their status as workmen entitled to protection under labour laws.
Anupam Mittal v. People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted an anti-enforcement injunction restraining enforcement of a Singapore anti-suit injunction, holding that oppression and mismanagement disputes are non-arbitrable and exclusively within the NCLT's jurisdiction under Indian law.