High Court of Bombay
4,240 judgments
Amol Ashok Inamdar v. Bhalchandra Damodar Thakare
The Bombay High Court dismissed the revision application challenging eviction of tenants on the ground of landlord’s bonafide and reasonable requirement, upholding the validity of a consent decree partition and concurrent findings of lower courts.
Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a draft modification notification not finally sanctioned cannot override existing Development Control Regulations or binding judicial rulings, and directed the MCGM to allow the petitioner to adjust DP Road reservation against amenity space as per settled law.
Sinochem India Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs
The Bombay High Court held that amendment of Bill of Entry GSTIN details post-clearance is permissible under Section 149 of the Customs Act if documentary evidence existed at clearance, and Customs officers cannot reject such amendment by applying GST law provisions extraneous to the Customs Act.
M/s. CWT India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1)
The Bombay High Court held that failure to issue a mandatory draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act renders the final assessment order without jurisdiction and quashed the impugned orders accordingly.
World Crest Advisors LLP v. Catalyst Trusteeship Limited & Ors.
The Court held that a pledgee holds only a special interest in pledged shares without ownership or voting rights, and where the underlying loan transaction is vitiated by fraud, the pledge is void ab initio, but declined interim relief restraining the pledgee’s exercise of rights pending final adjudication.
Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxation
The Bombay High Court held that assessment orders under Section 153C read with Section 144 without issuance of mandatory notice under Section 143(2) and without a DIN are invalid, and jurisdiction to reassess under Section 153C requires incriminating material found during search.
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.