High Court of Bombay
4,240 judgments
Shri Rajendra v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
The High Court set aside the Tribunal's interim order reinstating Respondent No. 2 to a post already taken over by the petitioner, holding that interim mandatory injunctions require a strong case and the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction.
Dr. Ravindra alias Satish Vithal Rananavare v. Avinash Vithal Rananavare
The Bombay High Court dismissed the testamentary petition, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove due execution of the Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act amid suspicious circumstances and inadequate evidence.
PVR Ltd. v. Proetus Ventures LLP
The Bombay High Court held that jurisdiction lies in Maharashtra despite a Delhi jurisdiction clause, partners of an LLP are not personally liable absent wrongful acts, and granted summary decree against the LLP for unpaid invoices.
Omprakash Nagoja v. Ranger Forest, Bombay Range Office
The Bombay High Court upheld the Forest Department's authority to levy transit fees on imported timber transported from JNPT port to C.F.S. Mulund under the Indian Forest Act and Bombay Forest Rules, dismissing the petition challenging the demand.
Pandit @ Baban Chimaji Bhutekar v. The State of Maharashtra
The High Court modified the appellants' conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, sentencing them accordingly and ordering their release after considering the evidence and legal principles.
Shree Nasik Panchavati Panjrapole v. The District Collector
The Bombay High Court quashed the land acquisition award for failure to provide mandatory 30-day notice and personal hearing under the 2013 Act, emphasizing the essential right to be heard before deprivation of property.
Vilas Ashok Aawale v. The State of Maharashtra
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).
Brihanmumbai Police Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra
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.
Sukumar Bhoja Shetty v. Ganapal Bhoja Shetty
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.
Usha Hiralal Kanojia v. Jayshree Mangesh Chauhan
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.
Shriprakash Ramshringar Pandey v. Income Tax Officer – 14(3)(4), Mumbai
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.
Prakash B. Kamat v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-10 & Ors.
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.
Girish Vinodchandra Dhruva and Ors. v. Smt. Neena Paresh Shah and Ors.
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.
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
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.
Yes Bank Limited v. Union of India
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.
Allan Sebastian D’Souza & Ors. v. Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Tribunal & Ors.
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.
Citibank N.A. v. S.K. Ojha & Ors.
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.
Tiscon Realty Private Limited v. C. G. Edifice & Ors.
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.
The Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai East Commissionerate v. ICICI Bank Ltd.
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.
Jayvant S. Shah & Ors. v. Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited & Ors.
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.