High Court of Bombay
5,131 judgments
Digi1 Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening of income tax assessment due to lack of new tangible material and procedural irregularities, emphasizing the necessity of a rational nexus between information and escaped income.
Framji Dinshaw Petit Parsee Sanatorium v. Income Tax Officer and Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 without fresh tangible material is impermissible and upheld the petitioner charitable trust's right to carry forward and set off deficit, quashing the reassessment notice and order.
Angsley Investments Limited v. Jupiter Denizcilik Tasimacilik Mumessillik San. Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi
The Bombay High Court held that admiralty jurisdiction requires vessels to be parties and within territorial jurisdiction for arrest, disallowed injunctions against non-parties, and set aside decree against appellant for lack of jurisdiction.
Ravindra Shivram Salvi v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's arms licence under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, holding that the licensing authority's subjective satisfaction based on criminal cases registered against the petitioner justified the revocation to maintain public peace.
Lyka Labs Limited & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
The Bombay High Court held that an authorized signatory of a company is not the 'drawer' under the Negotiable Instruments Act and cannot be directed to pay interim compensation under section 143A, which applies solely to the drawer (the company).
Anil Purshottam Sharma v. Monica Jignesh Parekh
The High Court held the truck driver solely negligent for a night-time expressway accident due to improper parking without hazard signals, reduced excessive compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and enhanced the claimants' compensation accordingly.
Man Global Ltd v. Ram Prakash Joukani; Man Global Ltd v. Bharat Prakash Joukani
The Bombay High Court held that appeals under Section 58 of RERA lie against any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, not only final orders, overruling prior contrary precedent.
Mudhit Madanlal Gupta v. Emgee Enclave LLP
The Bombay High Court held that the same arbitrator can be appointed again under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act despite prior arbitration on related issues, rejecting objections based on constructive res judicata and Fifth Schedule provisions.
Rekha Uttamrao Tapse v. Pune Municipal Corporation
The Bombay High Court upheld the employer's decision rejecting candidates with Construction Supervisor qualifications as ineligible for Assistant Encroachment Inspector posts, emphasizing employer's discretion in determining qualification equivalence.
Meghna Sanjeev Ranade v. Sanjeev Vyankatesh Ranade & Ors.
The court held that the bank's liability to pay maintenance from sale proceeds is limited to dues outstanding as of the Supreme Court's 2008 order, dismissing the appellant's claim for subsequent maintenance amounts from the bank.
Parvati Dattatray Kumbhar v. Committee for Scrutiny of Caste Claims
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging the invalidation of a caste claim, holding that inconsistent evidence and lack of Maharashtra residence on the deemed date justified denial of caste benefits.
Rita Kirit Joshi v. New India Assurance Company & Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition directing an insurer to honor claims for premature newborn twins, holding that exclusion clauses denying coverage for pre-term care violate IRDAI guidelines and fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.
Hanuman Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd
The Bombay High Court set aside an arbitral award due to invalid unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator by one party under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming that such objections can be raised under Section 34 without prior objection before the arbitrator.
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.