High Court of Bombay
4,240 judgments
Nikhil Uttam Undre v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the disqualification of a village panchayat member for encroachment on government Gaothan land under section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, affirming the Additional Divisional Commissioner's order.
Synechron Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State
The Bombay High Court quashed revenue orders demanding full stamp duty from an IT company relying on a subsisting government remission certificate for SEZ-based expansion, emphasizing natural justice and proper application of the Maharashtra IT/ITES Policy.
The Bhatiya General Hospital and Another v. Hanmant Anandrao Raje and Others
The Bombay High Court upheld that employees performing mainly technical duties remain workmen entitled to union benefits, and withdrawing such benefits constitutes unfair labour practices.
Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Pvt Ltd v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd
The Bombay High Court upheld the Estate Officer's order allowing amendment of damages claim in long-pending eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act, holding that CPC applies only to the extent provided and Limitation Act does not apply, dismissing the writ petition.
Amit Tanaji Gote v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that the Divisional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to set aside disqualification orders under Section 14B(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and directed fresh appeals under Section 14B(2) before the competent authority.
Kasthmandup Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed refund of stamp duty paid on an unexecuted deed substituted by executed documents, holding that the refund claim was timely under Section 48(2) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act and that delay was condonable, preventing unjust enrichment of the State.
Adhyatma Bandhu Gupta; Gaurishankar Saraf v. Division Joint Registrar; Deputy Registrar; Natwarlal Agarwal; Hatkesh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd
The court held that disqualification under Section 75(5) for default in holding AGM requires consideration of reasonable excuse and natural justice, quashing orders that failed to do so.
Sangita Pandurang Bankar and Ors. v. Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging the setting aside of Gram Panchayat Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch elections held by secret ballot without valid demand, holding that noncompliance with mandatory election rules and interpolation of minutes vitiated the election.
Balwant Krishna Thorat v. Shankar Nivruttti Thorat and Ors
The High Court upheld the appellate court's order denying injunction to a co-sharer vendee in undivided joint family property without partition, emphasizing that possession rights arise only after partition or decree.
Narhar Rango Kulkarni and Ors. v. Milind Shripad Bendre and Anr
The Bombay High Court upheld a compromise decree and dismissed the writ petition challenging it, holding that vague allegations of fraud without particulars cannot set aside a voluntarily entered and acted-upon compromise decree.
Shankar Shripad Latkar v. Dattatraya Haribhau Borawake
The Bombay High Court upheld eviction of tenant for three years' rent default under Section 25(2) of Maharashtra Tenancy Act, emphasizing strict proof of arrears and valid notice, and limited revisional interference with concurrent findings.
Shankar Shripad Latkar v. Mrs. Lata V. Harekal
The High Court upheld the landlord's eviction claim under Section 25(2) of the Maharashtra Tenancy Act due to tenant's continuous rent default and failure to comply with court orders, setting aside the MRT's revision order favoring the tenant.
The Indian Express (P) Limited & Ors. v. Ganesh Gopinath Rane & Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition quashing the Industrial Court's interim order restraining deputation of employees, holding that deputation under express transferability terms and without mala fide intent does not constitute unfair labour practice.
Prabhu Anant Lungase and Anr. v. Pralhad Hanumant Kamble and Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the landlord's right under Section 33B of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act to possession based on a valid Section 88C exemption certificate, dismissing the tenant's writ petition challenging concurrent orders of revenue authorities.
Bharat Thakaji Jadhav v. Kisan Tulsiram Aware
The High Court upheld the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's finding that lawful cultivation suffices to establish tenancy under the Maharashtra Tenancy Act, rejecting the petitioners' challenge and clarifying the commencement of the right to purchase period under Section 32-O.
Gajanan Mahadeo Potdar v. Govind Maruti Jare & Ors.
The High Court quashed the trial court's order impleading purchasers who acquired suit properties in violation of an injunction, holding them not proper parties to the suit.
Safset Agencies Private Ltd. v. Riddhi Rahul Kumar Gosalia & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Appellate Bench's order directing deposit of fair market rent exceeding contractual damages as a precondition for stay of eviction decree in a license dispute, applying the Atma Ram Properties principle to licensees.
Smt. Nair Pushpa Sureshkumar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the disqualification of a cooperative society's Managing Committee for deliberate delay in supplying documents and confirmed the appointment of an administrator under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
Raju Dhondiram Akrupe v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal’s order denying age relaxation to a government servant seeking to appear in a civil services examination under newer recruitment rules superseding the 1939 Rules.
Atharva Milind Desai v. Joint Admission Board, IIT
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition seeking late registration for JEE Advanced 2023, holding that strict adherence to prescribed timelines and rules is mandatory and courts cannot relax such rules under writ jurisdiction.