High Court of Bombay
4,240 judgments
Abdul Aziz Bharmar & Anr. v. Vinod Anand & Ors.
The Court held that utilization of TDR generated from suit land on adjoining land does not confer ownership rights in the adjoining land or flats constructed thereon, and the adjoining landowner cannot be impleaded as a party in the suit concerning the suit land.
D.K. Realty India Private Limited v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax
The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment without new material, after the issue was examined in the original scrutiny assessment, amounts to an impermissible change of opinion and quashed the reassessment notice.
Lok Developers v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment notices under section 148 must be served on the primary or updated email ID as per the last filed return, and service on a secondary email ID alone vitiates the proceedings.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court upheld the IPAB's order cancelling the petitioner's trademark registration for "OFLOMAC" due to deceptive similarity with respondent's earlier mark "OFRAMAX" in pharmaceutical products.
Sangharsh Alias Bhavya Nitin Adsul v. The Commissioner of Police Pune City
The Bombay High Court set aside a detention order due to unconstitutional delay in considering the petitioner's representation, affirming the requirement of expeditious disposal under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Eskay Hospitality Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Sterling Hospitality
The Bombay High Court held that a suit by an unregistered partnership firm to enforce contractual rights arising from its core business is barred under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and accordingly allowed the writ petition to reject the plaint.
Sunita Vilas Gavali & Ors. v. Balwant Shankar Gadave & Ors.
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act requires recovery efforts for unpaid purchase price before declaring a tenant-purchaser's acquisition ineffective, and failure to initiate such recovery invalidates eviction proceedings.
Gopal Ganpat Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding concurrent findings that the petitioner failed to prove lawful possession and tenancy rights on tillers day under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
State of Maharashtra v. Mayavati Ramchandra Sawant & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing regularisation of Badli workers based on a final Industrial Court adjudication of unfair labour practice, clarifying that the Umadevi judgment does not bar such relief.
Neena B. Rangnekar v. Sharadashram Vidyamandir Trust
The Bombay High Court held that retrenchment claims under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act fall within the Industrial Court's jurisdiction, not the Labour Court's exclusive domain over termination claims under Item 1, and remanded the matter for merits adjudication.
M/s. Lifeline Medical & General Stores Chemist and Drugs v. Assistant Municipal Commissioner Food & Drugs Administration & Licensing Authority, Maharashtra State
The Bombay High Court quashed the cancellation and suspension orders of a drug license for procedural lapses and accepted the petitioner's undertaking, allowing resumption of business.
Latif Yusuf Manikkoth v. Bank of Baroda
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition by a guarantor challenging SARFAESI recovery proceedings, holding that statutory remedies under SARFAESI and DRT Acts preclude writ jurisdiction and that the MSMED Act does not override SARFAESI protections.
Vidyadhar Gajanan Mote & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that under Section 19-B of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955, the Land Acquisition Officer can determine compensation without mandatory prior negotiation attempts by the State Government, and challenges to such awards must be pursued via statutory arbitration, not writ petitions.
Devkant Synthetics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all material facts during original assessment, quashing the reopening and reassessment orders.
Agarwal Industrial Corporations Limited v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that disputed tax under the Vivad se Vishwas Act must be computed by giving effect to the appellate tribunal's order passed before the specified date, setting aside a revenue demand ignoring that order.
The Suminter Organic and Fair Trade Cotton Ginning Mill Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court held that reopening of income tax assessment cannot be based on mere change of opinion and upheld the valuation method adopted by the assessee, setting aside the reopening notice and order.
Apar Industries Ltd v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court quashed the nine-month delisting of Apar Industries by Indian Railways for unauthorized job work, holding the order arbitrary, disproportionate, and lacking cogent reasons, and directed reinstatement in ongoing tenders.
Jagesh Bhadra Kumar Savjani v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court quashed show cause notices and order under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act for failure to disclose mandatory jurisdictional facts regarding recovery efforts from the company before proceeding against its Director.
Lakhpatrai Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court held that the limitation period for fresh assessment under Section 153(3) starts upon receipt of the ITAT order by the Commissioner, and directed refund of tax and return of seized jewellery due to respondents' failure to comply within the prescribed time.
Rakesh @ Bhaiya Shambhuprasad Gupta v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence despite minor discrepancies and investigation lapses.