High Court of Bombay

4,240 judgments

Year:

Corona Remedies Private Limited v. Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

20 Jan 2023 · K. R. Shriram; Rajesh S Patil

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".

civil appeal_allowed Significant Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 28(3) Trademark infringement Passing off

M/s. Instakart Services Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

20 Jan 2023 · Sunil B. Shukre; M. W. Chandwani

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.

tax petition_allowed Significant Local Body Tax Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act dealer importer

Vijay Jagannath Salvi v. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation

20 Jan 2023 · Sunil B. Shukre; M. W. Chandwani

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.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Model Code of Conduct Election Commission Body Building Competition Permission revocation

Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra

20 Jan 2023 · G.S. Patel; S.G. Dige

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.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Section 93 license Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 aggregator license

Ram @ Pappu Arun Kore v. The State of Maharashtra

20 Jan 2023 · A.S. Gadkari; Prakash D. Naik

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.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant preventive detention public order law and order subjective satisfaction

Sara Chemicals and Consultants v. Deepak Nitrite Limited

19 Jan 2023 · Bharati Dangre
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

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.

commercial_arbitration petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 17 interim measures Section 19 procedural powers Section 37 appeal

Udayraj Babaso Patil v. Pramod Babaso Patil

19 Jan 2023 · MILIND N. JADHAV

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.

civil appeal_allowed Significant partition notional partition exclusive possession temporary injunction

Airoli Neha Apartment Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

19 Jan 2023 · G. S. Kulkarni

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.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 de-registration of cooperative society jurisdiction of Registrar legality of construction

Mohammad Rafique Ansar Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra

18 Jan 2023 · Nitin W. Sambre; R. N. Laddha

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.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 498-A IPC domestic dispute amicable settlement

Kiritkumar B. Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

18 Jan 2023 · R.D. Dhanuka; M.M. Sathaye

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.

constitutional petition_dismissed land acquisition compensation delay Article 226

Mahesh Govind Kargutkar v. The Liquidator, Bhandari Co-op. Bank Ltd

17 Jan 2023 · Milind N. Jadhav

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.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Section 88 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act statutory inquiry financial loss loan fraud

Pushpa Laxman Vartak v. Circle Inspector, Manikpur and Ors.

17 Jan 2023 · Milind N. Jadhav

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.

civil petition_dismissed Significant right of way injunction suppression of facts Mamlatdar Court Act

Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India & Ors.

17 Jan 2023 · K. M. Joseph; B. V. Nagarathna

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.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant family pension Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 Rule 54(14)(b) Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

Bajaj Electricals Limited v. Chanda S. Khetawat & Anr.

16 Jan 2023 · Bharati Dangre

The Bombay High Court held that the MSMED Act's dispute resolution mechanism overrides an existing arbitration agreement, dismissing the applicant's plea for appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 Section 11 Arbitration Section 18 MSMED Act

Nivrutti D. Ghogare & Ors. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai & Ors.

16 Jan 2023 · R.D. Dhanuka; M.M. Sathaye

The court held that compensation for land excluded from an acquisition agreement must be determined under Section 33(3) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, quashing the award made under Section 33(2) without such agreement.

property appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Industrial Development Act land acquisition compensation Section 33(2)

Samidha Nimkar v. Somaiya Vidyavihar & Ors.

13 Jan 2023 · G.S. Patel; S.G. Dige
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court quashed administrative orders rejecting a teacher's appointment approval for being arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of natural justice, directing approval and payment of arrears.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Wednesbury unreasonableness principles of natural justice no objection certificate government resolution

Ganpat Govind Shigvan v. Preeti Paresh Shah

13 Jan 2023 · Sandeep K. Shinde

The Bombay High Court held that a civil court has jurisdiction to try a possession suit founded on title against a defendant claiming to be a gratuitous licensee, rejecting the plea that the Small Causes Court has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant jurisdiction gratuitous licensee possession suit Presidency Small Causes Court Act

Aman Builders and Developers, Goa v. Guddu S. Malha

12 Jan 2023 · Madhav J. Jamdar

Second Appeals under Section 58 of the RERA Act concerning real estate projects in Goa must be filed at the High Court of Bombay at Goa and not at its Principal Seat in Mumbai.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Section 58 RERA Act High Court jurisdiction Goa Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

Shital Anna Walawade v. The State of Maharashtra

12 Jan 2023 · R. D. Dhanuka; M. M. Sathaye

The Bombay High Court held that petitioners are entitled to compensation under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act for alternate land accepted by the State where compensation was not paid before the Act's commencement, rejecting their claim for rental compensation.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 alternate land

G M Heights LLP v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

12 Jan 2023 · G. S. Kulkarni; R. N. Laddha
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that a single tenant cannot obstruct redevelopment or dictate its nature, and the Municipal Corporation must grant commencement certificate without requiring consent from all tenants if alternate accommodation is offered.

property appeal_allowed Significant redevelopment tenant rights commencement certificate alternate accommodation