High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Manoj Mohan Mahind & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld MPSC's right to shortlist candidates based on higher qualifications under its 2014 Rules but refrained from conclusively deciding on the validity of private hospital experience, directing consideration of original applicants for remaining vacancies.
Nalini @ Madhavi Madhukar Murkute v. Deepak Manohar Gaikwad & Ors.
Transposition of a defendant as plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 1A CPC is impermissible where there is a conflict of interest with the plaintiff, especially in cases of partial withdrawal of suit claims.
Nilesh Ramdhan Gavai v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court modified the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, holding that the killing occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation.
Kharghar Co-op. Housing Societies Federation Ltd. v. Municipal Commissioner, Panvel Municipal Corporation
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging retrospective property tax bills by Panvel Municipal Corporation, holding that statutory appeal remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Sanghmitra R. Sandansing v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that the Municipal Corporation must conduct a comparative review of promotion cases applying uniform standards, setting aside the isolated consideration of the petitioner and making the junior officer's promotion provisional pending reconsideration.
Mr. Karam Hussain Mohabbat Ali Shah v. Mr. Abdul Latif Lakdawala
The Bombay High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that the accused successfully rebutted the presumption of liability by proving non-delivery of goods and stop payment instructions.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manjula Kabiraj Das
The Bombay High Court upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award, ruling that salary deductions for compensation exclude allowances except Income and Professional Tax, future prospects are justified, and compassionate employment or ex-gratia payments do not bar compensation claims.
The Willingdon Sports Club v. Nagnesh alias B.S. Akhade & Ors.
The High Court upheld the Executing Court’s order holding that the decree for possession of one hut was fully satisfied and rejected the Plaintiff’s attempt to recover additional land not included in the suit premises.
Murlidhar Waman Bombale; Waman Tulshiram Bombale; Vishnu Waman Bombale v. The State of Maharashtra
The High Court upheld the murder conviction of accused No. 1 for a fatal single blow but acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 of murder due to lack of common intention, maintaining their convictions for lesser offences.
Gujrat Apollo Industries Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging fresh tendering by the Municipal Corporation, holding that no enforceable right accrued to the petitioner consortium and that the tendering authority's decision was not arbitrary or irrational.
NSEL Investors Action Group v. Chandravali Manek
The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court’s order permitting equitable, graded distribution of recovered monies to individual investors with outstanding amounts between Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.20 lakhs under the MPID Act, dismissing the appellant’s challenge to the classification and jurisdiction.
Shiva Shankar Mamidi v. Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that departmental enquiry and criminal trial can proceed simultaneously unless identical charges and evidence exist and the criminal charge is grave, and dismissed the petition seeking stay of departmental enquiry during pendency of criminal trial.
M/s. Gangotri Developers v. Shri Ajit Anantrao Butte Patil & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a plaint cannot be summarily rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on disputed factual grounds regarding partnership registration, restoring the suit for trial and emphasizing that such issues require evidence and cannot be decided at the pleading stage.
Gouri Abhay Bhide v. Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking direction to CBI/ED to investigate allegations against political figures, holding that vague and speculative allegations without prima facie evidence do not warrant judicially ordered investigation under Article 226.
XYZ v. The Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that the Central Government's 2023 notification prohibiting donor gametes in surrogacy is contrary to the Surrogacy Act and unconstitutional as applied to petitioners with medical necessity, allowing them to proceed with surrogacy without complying with that condition.
The Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East Commissionerate v. The Securities and Exchange Board of India
The Bombay High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CESTAT's finding that extended limitation for service tax demand could not be invoked without evidence of wilful suppression or fraud by SEBI.
MRK Enterprises v. Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority & Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition directing issuance of occupancy certificate without requiring revised CRZ clearance, applying paragraph 8(V)(c)(2)(i) of CRZ Notification 2011 to ongoing redevelopment projects with prior development permission under DCR 1991.
Karanja Terminal & Logistics Pvt Ltd v. Sahara Dredging Ltd
The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral interim order directing security for an admitted claim, emphasizing limited judicial interference in discretionary arbitral interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act.
Union of India v. Chandrakant Sakharam Joshi
The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal's order setting aside the removal penalty due to cumulative procedural violations including failure to conduct mandatory general examination under Rule 9(21), ordering reinstatement without back wages.
Niloufer Soli Lam v. Zarir Pesi Bharucha
The Bombay High Court held that matrimonial disputes relating to property fall exclusively within the Family Court's jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act, 1984, and transferred the suit filed in the High Court to the Family Court.