High Court of Bombay
5,131 judgments
Amir Ismail Sayyad @ Billa v. The State of Maharashtra
The High Court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, holding the child eyewitness testimony reliable and the appellant acted in heat of passion without premeditation.
Mr. Dhanaraj Meghraj Rajpal v. American Express Banking Corporation
The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court's order granting conditional leave to defend in a summary suit for recovery of an erroneously paid amount under a merchant agreement, dismissing the petition challenging the deposit condition.
Sameedha Suhas Deshpande v. Chairman, Shri Dinesh Kumar Khara
The Bombay High Court held that probationary service counts towards qualifying service for pension under SBI’s voluntary retirement scheme, quashing SBI’s refusal to grant pension on excluding probation.
M & G Global Services Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act is payable on delayed refunds from the expiry of three months from receipt of refund applications, regardless of delay caused by the revenue in raising objections.
Jagdish @ Pintu Ratnakar Konherikar v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court set aside murder convictions due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions for recording confessions under Section 164 CrPC and lack of corroborative evidence.
M/s Shweta Infrastructure and Housing (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and ors.
The Bombay High Court held that refund of stamp duty under the Maharashtra Stamp Act is permissible for a registered agreement for sale or development agreement cancelled within five years, regardless of instrument classification, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Mansaram s/o Damu Ahire v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court acquitted a police constable accused of bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to irreconcilable discrepancies in prosecution evidence and failure to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Dilip Dagdoba Zadbuke & Ors. v. Sadanand Arvind Khandagle
The High Court dismissed the appeal holding that legal representatives cannot file a counter claim beyond the deceased's defence and that failure to prove part performance under Section 53A justifies dismissal of possession claims based on oral agreement.
Madhukar Makaji Mudgul v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a deaf and dumb rape victim's brother-in-law, enhanced the sentence to the statutory minimum of seven years rigorous imprisonment, and affirmed the admissibility of victim's testimony through an expert interpreter under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Anil Kumar Singhal and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others
The High Court dismissed the application to quash proceedings under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that the complaint contained sufficient averments of the applicants' responsibility as directors and no unimpeachable evidence negated their liability.
Nizar Noorali Rangara and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others
The Bombay High Court held that criminal complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are maintainable against a company wound up by consent terms, without requiring leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, and dismissed applications to quash such complaints.
Allauddin v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a husband for the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence and medical opinion ruling out suicidal hanging, emphasizing the burden on the accused to explain death when last seen together.
~ v. ~
The Bombay High Court upheld the revocation of suspension of a police officer by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, emphasizing that suspension cannot be prolonged indefinitely without a reasoned extension order and dismissing the writ petition filed by the complainant lacking locus standi.
Gopal Shivram Krishnan v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges due to failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt on circumstantial evidence.
Infinity Infra v. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited
The Bombay High Court held that a bidder is entitled to withdraw its bid and claim refund of the Earnest Money Deposit after the stipulated 90-day validity period, and forfeiture clauses apply only within that period.
Vitthal Rajendra Jogade v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for aggravated sexual assault of a minor under IPC and POCSO Act, modifying the sentence to 8 years rigorous imprisonment based on credible victim testimony and proportionality in sentencing.
Sunil Shamrao Patil & Anupama Sunil Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that without mandatory service of notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, land cannot be declared private forest under the MPFA, quashing mutation entries vesting such land in the State Government.
The Chief Administrative Officer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran v. Shri Satish Gajanan Pradhan
The Bombay High Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate a pension-related dispute as a public utility service matter under the Legal Services Authorities Act, dismissing the petitioner’s challenge.
Sole Proprietor of M/s Vikrant Developers v. Rashida Sadiqbhai Kalyanwalla
The Bombay High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, held that arbitration commences on invocation notice, and referred disputes including impleading a subsequent transferee to arbitration.
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-14, Mumbai v. Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd
The High Court held that prior to Explanation 2 to Section 263, mere inadequacy of inquiry by the Assessing Officer does not justify revision of assessment order, and upheld the Tribunal's decision dismissing the revenue's appeal against the allowance of deductions claimed by the assessee.