High Court of Bombay

4,240 judgments

Year:

Akshay @ Chhotya Kachar Jedgule v. The State of Maharashtra

08 Sep 2022 · A.S. Gadkari; Milind N. Jadhav

The High Court set aside a murder conviction based solely on last seen together circumstantial evidence, holding that the accused's plausible explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. broke the chain of evidence and created reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant last seen together theory circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC Section 313 CrPC

Sharad Darade v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

08 Sep 2022 · Prasanna B. Varale; Shrikant D. Kulkarni

The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR alleging conspiracy and harassment leading to a tribal MP's suicide, holding that the allegations lacked material to attract offences under IPC and the Atrocities Act and constituted abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant FIR quashment Section 306 IPC Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Abetment to suicide

Dashrath Arun Sasane v. The State of Maharashtra

08 Sep 2022 · A.S. Gadkari; Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of the appellant for murdering his wife by setting her ablaze, relying primarily on credible dying declarations corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC murder burn injuries

M/s. Rudraksh Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Vimal Inter Trade Private Limited

07 Sep 2022 · Sandeep K. Shinde

The Bombay High Court held that a suit based on dishonored cheques is maintainable in the court where the cheques were delivered and dishonored, dismissing the petition challenging territorial jurisdiction.

civil petition_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction dishonored cheque summary suit Order XXXVII CPC

Sanjeev Builders Private Limited v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

07 Sep 2022 · R.D. Dhanuka; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court held that in suits for specific performance, evidence proving readiness and willingness to perform cannot be summarily excluded for going beyond pleadings and must be considered after full trial, allowing the appellants to lead their affidavit evidence subject to cross-examination.

civil appeal_allowed Significant specific performance readiness and willingness affidavit in lieu of examination Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC

Steel Plant Private Limited v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

07 Sep 2022 · R. D. Dhanuka; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court held that the Municipal Corporation lacked jurisdiction to take possession of petitioners' land under section 299 of the MMC Act due to absence of an existing prescribed public street line, quashing the possession notices.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Section 297(1)(b) Section 299 public street definition

C R Menon v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

06 Sep 2022 · GS Patel; Gauri Godse
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court set aside arbitral awards that disregarded the fixed rate contract terms and rejected an undisputed counter claim, holding that courts can quash but not modify arbitration awards under the Arbitration Act, 1996.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Section 37 patent illegality

Kushal @ Akash Dattatray Prabhu v. The State of Maharashtra

06 Sep 2022 · A.S. Gadkari; Milind N. Jadhav

The High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence including last seen theory, scientific proof, and recovery of incriminating articles.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen together theory Section 302 IPC ransom call

Sheshmani Magdum Pal v. State of Maharashtra

06 Sep 2022 · A.S. Gadkari; Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife and two minor sons based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence murder Section 302 IPC Section 201 IPC

Sidram Baccharam Kamble v. The State of Maharashtra

06 Sep 2022 · A.S. Gadkari; Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence and the last seen together theory, affirming the sufficiency of the prosecution's chain of evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen together theory Section 302 IPC Section 309 IPC

Mahadeo Rama Madhvi & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

06 Sep 2022 · A. S. Gadkari; Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court upheld the murder convictions of accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 based on reliable ocular and forensic evidence while acquitting others for lack of specific proof.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant murder ocular evidence recovery evidence blood-stained clothes

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bharat Krishnalal Thakkar

06 Sep 2022 · S. M. Modak
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court dismissed BPCL's appeal, holding that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain eviction on lease expiry without renewal under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, excluding applicability of Maharashtra Rent Control Act to BPCL.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant eviction lease expiry Transfer of Property Act Section 106

Ganpat Baburao Boraste v. Vinayak Pandurang Waghmare

05 Sep 2022 · Sandeep K. Shinde

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order allowing amendment of the plaint introducing a barred cause of action regarding tenancy rights bequeathed by Will, holding such amendment impermissible and unnecessary for deciding the suit on adverse possession.

civil petition_allowed Significant amendment of plaint cause of action limitation res judicata

Seema Wd/o Sanjay Pathare; Neha D/o Sanjay Pathare v. Union of India

05 Sep 2022 · Anuja Prabhudessai

The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal and awarded compensation to the dependents of a deceased railway employee, holding that death occurred in an untoward incident under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, rejecting the Railway's claim of unauthorized track crossing.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Railways Act 1989 Section 124-A untoward incident bonafide passenger

Ramesh Vasantrao Patil v. The State of Maharashtra

05 Sep 2022 · G. S. Kulkarni; Arif S. Doctor
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court upheld the disqualification of a Gram Panchayat member under Section 14(1)(d) following removal under Section 39(1), affirming that interim stay of appellate orders does not negate statutory disqualification.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disqualification Section 14(1)(d) Section 39(1) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959

Procter and Gamble Home Products Private Limited v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

02 Sep 2022 · M.S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court held that the ITAT exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act by revisiting the classification of income already pending before the High Court, and set aside the impugned order accordingly.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Section 254(2) Income Tax Act jurisdictional limit income classification

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd v. Anil Jayram Ghag

30 Aug 2022 · Gauri Godse

The Bombay High Court upheld interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ruling that no-fault liability applies once a policy is produced unless proven fake, and such summary findings do not bar defenses in later proceedings.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140 No fault liability Interim compensation

Arun Sambhaji Khanvilkar v. The State of Maharashtra

30 Aug 2022 · A.S. Gadkari

The Bombay High Court acquitted police officers accused of corruption due to failure of prosecution to prove demand of bribe with independent corroboration and non-production of electronic evidence.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 demand of illegal gratification accomplice testimony corroboration

Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner of Sales

30 Aug 2022 · Dipankar Datta, CJ; M. S. Karnik, J; N. J. Jamadar, J

The Bombay High Court held that secured creditors under the SARFAESI and RDDB Acts do not have a statutory first charge overriding State tax dues, and priority in payment under the 2016 amendments does not displace the State's first charge.

civil appeal_allowed Significant SARFAESI Act RDDB Act priority of secured creditors first charge

Union Bank of India v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax

30 Aug 2022 · G. S. Kulkarni; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla

The Bombay High Court held that a secured creditor with registered charge under the SARFAESI Act has priority over the State Government’s sales tax attachment, quashing the attachment order and allowing recovery from secured assets.

civil petition_allowed Significant secured creditor SARFAESI Act CERSAI registration priority of charge