High Court of Bombay

4,240 judgments

Year:

Vitthal Shankar Nanaware & Ors. v. Jitendra Shivaji Ambekar & Ors.

21 Jul 2022 · Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal to convert a motor accident claim filed under Section 163A to Section 166 due to the deceased's income exceeding Rs.40,000, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Section 163A Section 166 compensation

Nandlal Zagadu Yadav v. The State of Maharashtra

21 Jul 2022 · Prasanna B. Varale; Shrikant D. Kulkarni
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused due to lack of expert evidence on victim's mental illness, contradictions in prosecution evidence, and absence of victim's testimony, holding that the prosecution failed to prove rape and wrongful confinement beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant rape wrongful confinement mental illness schizophrenia

Dattatraya Bajirao Kale v. Shri Dinkar Pandurang Pawar

21 Jul 2022 · Prithviraj K. Chavan

The Bombay High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding the trial and appellate courts' decree for specific performance, holding the suit within limitation and the appellant not a bona fide purchaser.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance readiness and willingness limitation bona fide purchaser

M/s. Metaforge Engineering (I) P. Ltd. v. Union of India

20 Jul 2022 · S.V. Gangapurwala; Sandeep V. Marne

A Medium Enterprise acting as a supplier of goods produced by micro or small enterprises can invoke the jurisdiction of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under section 18 of the MSMED Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 supplier definition Medium Enterprise Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Raymond Ltd. v. Maruti Tukaram Yadav & Anr.

20 Jul 2022 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld the Industrial Court's jurisdiction over contract workers' complaints under the MRTU & PULP Act and approved a lump sum compensation settlement to end a 26-year labor dispute with Raymond Ltd.

labor appeal_allowed Significant contract workers Industrial Court jurisdiction MRTU & PULP Act BIR Act

Nitin Nagarkar v. Income-tax Officer

19 Jul 2022 · Dhiraj Singh Thakur; Valmiki Sa Menezes

The Bombay High Court held that a Tax Recovery Officer lacks jurisdiction to declare a property transfer void under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, setting aside such an order passed without due procedure.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 281 Income Tax Act Tax Recovery Officer jurisdiction transfer void under Income Tax Act natural justice

Shankar @ Bhagirath Bachaku Zha v. The State of Maharashtra

19 Jul 2022 · A. S. Gadkari; Rajesh S. Patil

The High Court modified the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, recognizing grave and sudden provocation as mitigating circumstance.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant extra-judicial confession grave and sudden provocation Section 302 IPC Section 304 Part II IPC

Vivek Gawde v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

19 Jul 2022 · Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court held that framing of regulations under Section 105H MMC Act is discretionary and absence thereof does not invalidate eviction proceedings under Section 105B, directing the enquiry to proceed with adherence to natural justice.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Section 105B MMC Act Section 105H MMC Act Eviction proceedings Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Authorized Officer, I.D.B.I Bank Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra

19 Jul 2022 · K.R. Shriram; A.S. Doctor

The High Court held that the District Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is limited to assisting secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets and does not extend to adjudicating disputes or entertaining borrower objections, setting aside the impugned order that exceeded this scope.

civil appeal_allowed Significant SARFAESI Act Section 14 secured creditor possession of secured assets

Nikhilesh Kesarichand Jhaveri v. New Era Fabrics Limited

19 Jul 2022 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The court held that proforma defendants without adverse interest cannot lead evidence adverse to Plaintiffs in an eviction suit, setting aside the order permitting such evidence.

civil petition_allowed Significant eviction suit proforma defendant leading evidence presidency small causes courts act

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune v. Kumar Builders Consortium

18 Jul 2022 · Dhiraj Singh Thakur; Abhay Ahuja

The Bombay High Court upheld the ITAT's order allowing pro rata deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for eligible flats despite some flats exceeding the prescribed built-up area limit.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 80IB(10) Income Tax Act, 1961 pro rata deduction built-up area limit

M/s. L.K.P. Merchant Financing Ltd. v. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

18 Jul 2022 · Dhiraj Singh Thakur; Abhay Ahuja

The Bombay High Court held that under amended Section 36(1)(vii), a bona fide write-off of bad debt in accounts suffices for tax deduction, allowing the appellant's claim despite accounting method or pending litigation.

tax appeal_allowed Significant bad debt deduction Section 36(1)(vii) Income Tax Act 1961 mercantile system of accounting

Royston Xavier Parera v. The State of Maharashtra

18 Jul 2022 · A.S. Gadkari

The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for penetrative sexual assault on a minor under the POCSO Act and IPC, affirming the sufficiency of credible child testimony and medical evidence despite absence of injury.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act sexual assault child victim testimony penetrative sexual assault

Satyanarayana Rani v. National Investigation Agency & Ors.

15 Jul 2022 · Revati Mohite Dere; V. G. Bisht

The Bombay High Court allowed bail to a 72-year-old accused in an IED blast case, holding that the prosecution failed to prima facie establish his involvement and that continued incarceration would violate his fundamental rights.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail National Investigation Agency Act Unlawful Activities Prevention Act prima facie case

Shivaji Ramchandra Tirlotkar v. The State of Maharashtra

15 Jul 2022 · A. S. Gadkari

The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a neighbor for penetrative sexual assault on a 5-year-old child under the POCSO Act, reduced the sentence from 15 to 10 years, and set aside redundant convictions under lesser POCSO offences.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant POCSO Act penetrative sexual assault child victim testimony medical evidence

Union of India v. Bobsons Corporation

15 Jul 2022 · K.R. Shriram; Milind N. Jadhav

The High Court upheld the Settlement Commission’s order refusing to reject the settlement application despite alleged incomplete disclosure, limiting its review to procedural legality under Article 226.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Settlement Commission Customs Act 1962 Section 127B full and true disclosure

Sterlite Industries (India) Limited v. Special Director of Enforcement

14 Jul 2022 · K. R. Shriram; Milind N. Jadhav

The High Court held that once a contravention under FEMA is lawfully compounded and charges paid, no further adjudication proceedings can be continued, quashing the penalty order passed thereafter.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 compounding of contravention section 15(1) and 15(2) adjudication order

S.S. Kilaje v. State of Maharashtra

14 Jul 2022 · K. R. Shriram; Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court held that entertainment duty cannot be levied on billiard tables in private clubs used exclusively by members without public access or separate payment, quashing all such demand notices.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Entertainment Duty Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, 1923 Billiard Tables Private Clubs

Kalpana Vijaysinh Savant v. Barkha Amir Haldive

14 Jul 2022 · Rohit B. Deo

The High Court held that a consenting party without any legal right or interest under the suit agreement is neither a necessary nor proper party and set aside the trial court's order allowing its impleadment in a suit for specific performance.

civil petition_allowed Significant specific performance necessary party proper party Order 1 Rule 10 CPC

Kalpana Vijaysinh Savant v. Barkha Amir Haldive

14 Jul 2022 · Rohit B. Deo

The Bombay High Court held that a consenting party without legal right or interest in the suit property is neither a necessary nor proper party in a suit for specific performance and set aside the trial court's order allowing its impleadment.

civil appeal_allowed Significant specific performance necessary party proper party Order 1 Rule 10 CPC