High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Priyanka Santosh Hegishte v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed the Education Officer's refusal to approve a teacher's appointment due to administrative inaction and held that the school management was entitled to proceed with the appointment after seeking permission and receiving no response.
Shrikant Govind Taklikar; Shashikant Govind Taklikar; Sajit Narsinh Gaklikar v. State of Maharashtra; District Collector, Solapur; Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) No.1, Solapur; Project Director, National Highways Authority
The Bombay High Court held that the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 has no power to issue a supplementary award reducing compensation after the original award, and quashed the illegal supplementary award reducing petitioners' compensation.
Sau. Sangeeta Natwarlal Karwa v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 has no power to issue a supplementary award reducing compensation once the original award is passed, quashing the illegal supplementary award and directing payment of the balance compensation to the petitioners.
University of Mumbai v. Satish V. Ratnaparkhi
The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal's order allowing the Director of a University Institute to continue service until 65 years, holding that AICTE Regulations and the 2011 Government Resolution govern retirement age, invalidating the University's 60-year retirement policy.
Sandeep Arjun Kudale v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed FIRs under Sections 153A and 505 IPC against a petitioner for expressing political dissent, holding no prima facie offence was made out and affirming the protection of freedom of speech under the Constitution.
Vasant Bhaskar Thakur and Ors. v. Sitaram Waman Thakur
The High Court held that an appellate court should not routinely remand suits for retrial under Order 41 Rule 23A CPC without cogent reasons and restored the appeal for fresh disposal on merits.
Bhaskar Mahipat Pavale v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that disputes regarding apportionment of compensation under the MIDC Act must be referred to the prescribed authority and set aside the SDO's order disbursing compensation without such referral.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court allowed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's petition permitting construction of a suction tank in the mangrove buffer zone near Gorai Village, balancing public water supply needs with environmental safeguards under CRZ regulations.
M/s. Natvar Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
The Bombay High Court held that a writ petition challenging municipal property tax is not maintainable when an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 217 of the MMC Act is available and mandated deposits are not made.
Prakash Bhagwat Shinde & Anr v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors
The Bombay High Court directed the Pune Municipal Corporation to regularise 93 teachers appointed on leave vacancies with pay scale benefits, holding that only the School Education Department has jurisdiction over primary schools and censuring the Urban Development Department for overreach and delay.
Dilip Babubhai Shah v. Additional Resident Deputy Collector & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging acquisition proceedings under Section 23-A of the Fair Compensation Act, holding that awards made with consent of appearing persons interested are valid and non-consenting persons have alternative remedies.
Maruti Genba Veer and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that land holdings must be assessed as on the date of specific acquisition notification, and compulsory earlier acquisitions reduce holdings for subsequent acquisitions, quashing the acquisition of petitioners' land below the applicable slab.
Ashok Bansode v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that landowners who accepted compensation through private negotiation under the Fair Compensation Act, 2013 cannot claim rental compensation under earlier Land Acquisition Act provisions or Government Resolutions.
Nagreeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that an arbitration clause stating disputes "can be settled by arbitration" does not create a mandatory arbitration agreement, and dismissed the application for appointment of an arbitrator.
Naresh Goyal v. The Directorate of Enforcement
The Bombay High Court quashed the Enforcement Directorate's ECIR against petitioners due to the absence of a pending scheduled offence, affirming that money laundering proceedings cannot continue without a predicate offence.
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Rekha Ramdas Gorad
The Bombay High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal holding it liable to pay compensation due to failure to properly notify policy cancellation and allowed enhancement of compensation including future prospects and consortium.
Sharayu Sadanand Subhedar v. Yashodhan Prakash Agalgaonkar
The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court’s correction of a mutual consent divorce decree under Section 152 CPC to include the memorandum of settlement, ruling that omission of the settlement was an accidental slip correctible by the court.
Santaji Waman Gopale v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on consistent dying declarations and corroborative evidence, dismissing the appellant's claim of accidental fire.
Datta @ Dattatraya Dnyanu Methe & Ors. v. Sonabai Ganpati Methe & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a Plaintiff is not entitled to file a rejoinder after the Defendant's written statement without leave of the court and that mere denial by the Defendant does not warrant such replication, setting aside the trial court's order permitting filing of rejoinder.
Manya Vejju v. Sapna Bhog
The Bombay High Court held that lodging an FIR does not constitute commencement and prosecution of an action under the proviso to Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the injunction application after considering the subsequent infringement suit.