High Court of Bombay
4,240 judgments
Sudhakar Hanumant Pawar v. The Hon’ble Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies
The Bombay High Court held that limitation under Section 92 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act does not apply to recovery proceedings under Section 154B-29 before the Registrar, dismissing the writ petition challenging the remand order.
Shital Digamber Sawant v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that possession of a valid EWS certificate is required at the time of interview, not at the date of advertisement or application, and directed the MPSC to allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process.
National Textile Corporation Ltd v. Elixir Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court set aside MSMED Act arbitration awards for lack of jurisdiction, holding that works contracts and contracts executed before MSMED registration do not attract the Act's provisions.
Honey Bee Multitrading Pvt. Ltd. v. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that designation of Mumbai as the venue in the arbitration clause constitutes the seat of arbitration, conferring exclusive jurisdiction on this Court to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Municipal Corporation of the City of Thane v. The Raymond Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd
The Bombay High Court dismissed writ petitions by the Municipal Corporation seeking condonation of over six years' delay in filing appeals, holding that no sufficient cause was shown and government bodies are not entitled to special treatment in limitation matters.
Bronson Barthol Dias v. Central Adoption Resource Authority
The Bombay High Court held that adoption authorities must consider special circumstances and exercise relaxation powers before rejecting adoption applications of parents with disabled children under the Adoption Regulations 2022.
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.