High Court of Bombay

5,061 judgments

Year:

Vilas Ashok Aawale v. The State of Maharashtra

15 Jun 2023 · Revati Mohite Dere; Gauri Godse

The Bombay High Court quashed a preventive detention order due to material inconsistencies between its English and Marathi versions, violating the detenu's constitutional right to effective representation under Article 22(5).

criminal petition_allowed Significant preventive detention detention order variance in language versions Article 22(5) Constitution of India

Brihanmumbai Police Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra

14 Jun 2023 · Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court upheld the revision order exonerating a cooperative society office bearer from sole liability for financial loss caused by fraudulent loans, emphasizing collective responsibility and authorized cheque signing.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 loan disbursement managing committee liability fraud

Sukumar Bhoja Shetty v. Ganapal Bhoja Shetty

13 Jun 2023 · Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition seeking stay of execution of a final partition decree on the ground that a separate Testamentary Suit propounding a Will filed belatedly cannot override an unchallenged final decree.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Testamentary Suit Partition Suit Execution Proceedings Will Propounding

Usha Hiralal Kanojia v. Jayshree Mangesh Chauhan

13 Jun 2023 · S. M. Modak · 2003 CLJ 411

The High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a cheque dishonor case, holding that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by adducing positive evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 139 presumption Dishonor of cheque Rebuttal of presumption

Shriprakash Ramshringar Pandey v. Income Tax Officer – 14(3)(4), Mumbai

12 Jun 2023 · K. R. Shriram; M. M. Sathaye
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment beyond four years is impermissible without failure to disclose material facts, and a mere change of opinion does not justify reopening under section 147.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 147 Section 148 Reopening of assessment

Prakash B. Kamat v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-10 & Ors.

12 Jun 2023 · K.R. Shriram; M.M. Sathaye
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that a director of a private company cannot be held liable for the company's tax dues under Section 179(1) of the Income Tax Act without proof of gross neglect or misfeasance and quashed tax recovery orders against a director removed prior to the demand.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 179 Income Tax Act director liability gross neglect misfeasance

Girish Vinodchandra Dhruva and Ors. v. Smt. Neena Paresh Shah and Ors.

12 Jun 2023 · Anuja Prabhudessai
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement, holding that the power of attorney holder was competent to testify, time was essence of the contract, and the Plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their obligations.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance readiness and willingness power of attorney time essence of contract

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

09 Jun 2023 · K. R. Shriram; M. M. Sathaye
Cites 2 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that expenses and write-offs relating to a subsidiary company incurred on commercial expediency are deductible business losses under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 28 business loss deduction

Yes Bank Limited v. Union of India

09 Jun 2023 · G. S. Kulkarni; Rajesh S. Patil

The Bombay High Court held that the requirement of a joint application for refund of court fees under DRT Refund Rules is not mandatory where the judicial order grants refund to the applicant alone, allowing the bank's writ petition to obtain refund without the borrower's consent.

civil petition_allowed Significant refund of court fees Debt Recovery Tribunal joint application settlement

Allan Sebastian D’Souza & Ors. v. Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Tribunal & Ors.

09 Jun 2023 · Arif S. Doctor
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that mandatory publication and notice requirements under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act and Rules must be strictly complied with before declaring land as a slum, and noncompliance justifies condonation of delay and merits hearing of the appeal.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 slum declaration publication requirements Rule 3 of Slum Rules

Citibank N.A. v. S.K. Ojha & Ors.

09 Jun 2023 · K. R. Shriram; M. M. Sathaye · (2014) 44 taxmann.com 304 (Bombay)

The Bombay High Court held that a tax assessment settled under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme with payment and certificate issuance cannot be reopened under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act except in cases of false declaration.

tax petition_allowed Significant Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme KVSS Income Tax Act 1961 Section 148

Tiscon Realty Private Limited v. C. G. Edifice & Ors.

09 Jun 2023 · Arif S. Doctor

The Bombay High Court held that dishonour of cheques issued for loan repayment creates a new liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, allowing a Summary Suit, and parties making false statements on oath are disentitled from defending the suit.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Summary Suit Dishonour of Cheques Negotiable Instruments Act Loan vs Investment

The Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai East Commissionerate v. ICICI Bank Ltd.

08 Jun 2023 · G. S. Kulkarni; Rajesh S. Patil

The Bombay High Court held that appeals involving taxability and valuation issues under the Central Excise Act lie exclusively before the Supreme Court, dismissing the High Court appeal on maintainability grounds.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 35G Central Excise Act Section 35L Central Excise Act taxability valuation

Jayvant S. Shah & Ors. v. Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited & Ors.

08 Jun 2023 · Abhay Ahuja

The Bombay High Court upheld the appellate order allowing the Bank's amendment to its eviction suit plaint to elaborate bonafide requirement, emphasizing a liberal approach to amendments that do not introduce new causes or cause prejudice.

civil petition_dismissed Significant amendment of plaint bonafide requirement eviction suit subsequent events

Kondiba Dnyanu Dongale v. Kashibai Ramrao Nigade

08 Jun 2023 · N. J. Jamadar

The High Court held that while exemption certificates under section 88C cannot be reopened after finality, legal representatives of deceased landlords must satisfy bonafide requirement and equalization conditions under section 33B for possession claims, remitting the matter for fresh determination on these points.

property appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Section 88C certificate Section 33B possession economic holding

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kimberly Clark Lever Private Limited

07 Jun 2023 · K.R. Shriram; M.M. Sathaye

The Bombay High Court held that a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer without pending assessment proceedings is invalid, rendering the reassessment notice and TPO order void, and dismissed the income tax appeal.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 147 Section 148 Section 92CA

Krish Rajendra Chordiya v. The State of Maharashtra

07 Jun 2023 · G. S. Patel; Neela Gokhale

The Bombay High Court granted interim relief directing issuance of HSC mark-sheet to a student whose admission to Science stream was belatedly cancelled, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness in applying eligibility regulations.

education petition_allowed Significant eligibility for admission Science stream Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act promissory estoppel

Dharmendra M. Jani v. Union of India

06 Jun 2023 · Sunil B. Shukre; Abhay Ahuja

The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 13(8)(b) and 8(2) of the IGST Act, confining their operation to the IGST Act and dismissing challenges to their vires.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 13(8)(b) Section 8(2) constitutional validity

S. K. Trading Co. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

06 Jun 2023 · G. S. Kulkarni; Rajesh S. Patil

The Bombay High Court held that appeals and stay applications under the Maharashtra VAT Act include the interest component when part of a composite order, and barred appeals against independent interest orders do not apply to such composite orders.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 Section 30(2) interest Section 26 appeals Section 85 bar to appeal

Central Depository Services (India) Limited v. Daksha Narendra Bhavsar and Another

06 Jun 2023 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award holding the depository liable to indemnify an investor for losses caused by negligent and fraudulent acts of its Depository Participant in unauthorized transfer and pledge of shares.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Depositories Act, 1996 Section 16 liability Depository Participant negligence Power of Attorney misuse