High Court of Bombay
4,240 judgments
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.
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.