High Court of Bombay
5,131 judgments
Dr. Ravindra Rajaram Patil v. Yuvraj Appaso Neharkar
The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s rejection of temporary injunction against lawful construction on disputed land, emphasizing the need for prima facie ownership and valid development permissions under statutory procedures.
Rahul Giridhar Pathade v. The Collector of Nasik & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the grant and shifting of a CL III liquor license, holding the petitioner lacked locus standi and the licensing authorities had followed due process.
Bagmane Developers Pvt Ltd v. Future Sector Land Developers LLP & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a suit concerning immovable property situated in Bengaluru must be filed in the court having jurisdiction over that property under Section 16(d) CPC, and the proviso to Section 16 cannot independently confer jurisdiction on the Pune court.
Uttam Anna Lande v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction for murder based on a truthful dying declaration recorded by a Police Officer, rejecting the appellant's claim of accidental burns and lack of intent.
Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma v. National Investigating Agency & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appellant's bail plea in a conspiracy and murder case under the NIA Act, holding that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case warranting denial of bail.
M/s. Bhimale and Sons v. Moti Dinshaw Irani & Ors.
The High Court upheld eviction of defendants as unlawful subtenants on grounds of unlawful subletting and rent default, rejecting their claim of direct tenancy and dismissing plaintiffs' writ petition challenging cross-objections.
M/s. Bhimale and Sons v. Moti Dinshaw Irani
The Court upheld eviction of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as unlawful subtenants, rejecting their claim of direct tenancy with Plaintiffs, and affirmed that landlord-tenant relationship, not ownership, governs eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Corona Remedies Private Limited v. Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The Bombay High Court allowed Corona's appeal, holding that concurrent registration under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act bars infringement claims between similar registered pharmaceutical trademarks and that no passing off or confusion arose from the use of the mark "STIMULET".
M/s. Instakart Services Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a logistics service provider delivering goods sold on an e-commerce platform is neither a dealer nor importer under Maharashtra LBT laws and is not liable to register or pay Local Body Tax.
Vijay Jagannath Salvi v. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation
The Bombay High Court held that revocation of permission to hold a Body Building Competition on grounds of the Model Code of Conduct was arbitrary and unsustainable, emphasizing the need for valid grounds and hearing before administrative cancellation.
Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the rejection of a two- and three-wheeler aggregator license application due to non-compliance and absence of State policy, holding that no aggregator can operate without a valid license under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ram @ Pappu Arun Kore v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld a preventive detention order under the M.P.D.A. Act, ruling that the petitioner’s violent acts disturbed public order and that procedural requirements were complied with.
Sara Chemicals and Consultants v. Deepak Nitrite Limited
The Bombay High Court held that an arbitral order passed under Section 19 relating to procedural disclosure is not appealable under Section 37, dismissing the petition challenging disclosure of equipment component details claimed confidential by the petitioner.
Udayraj Babaso Patil v. Pramod Babaso Patil
The High Court allowed the writ petition restoring the Trial Court's order permitting the petitioner to complete construction on his notionally partitioned share of the suit property, holding that exclusive possession and use can be recognized despite absence of physical partition under statutory bar.
Airoli Neha Apartment Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that the Registrar and Hon’ble Minister lack jurisdiction to de-register a cooperative society on grounds of unauthorized construction, which fall within the exclusive domain of Planning Authorities or Civil Courts.
Mohammad Rafique Ansar Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute on the ground of amicable settlement between the parties, applying Supreme Court precedents permitting quashing in such cases.
Kiritkumar B. Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking compensation for land acquired in 1983 due to unexplained delay of over 36 years and upheld the finality of the earlier dismissal, holding that statutory remedies and limitation periods bar such claims under Article 226.
Mahesh Govind Kargutkar v. The Liquidator, Bhandari Co-op. Bank Ltd
The Bombay High Court quashed a Section 88 inquiry holding bank employees and directors liable for financial loss due to loan fraud, emphasizing adherence to statutory procedure, natural justice, and proper attribution of liability.
Pushpa Laxman Vartak v. Circle Inspector, Manikpur and Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging orders rejecting injunction over a disputed right of way, holding that suppression of prior litigation and finality of statutory orders disentitle the petitioner from interim relief.
Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that a child adopted by the widow after the death of a government employee is not entitled to family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.