High Court of Bombay

4,236 judgments

Year:

Jayprakash Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Mrt v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

04 Jul 2022 · R.D. Dhanuka; M.G. Sewlikar

The Bombay High Court held that the term of a cooperative society's managing committee was lawfully extended due to the Covid-19 pandemic and that a non-member lacked locus to challenge the committee, directing withdrawal of the show cause notice for appointment of an Administrator.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 Section 73AAA Section 77(A)(1-b) Covid-19 pandemic

Rajiv Sanghvi & Ors. v. Pradip R. Kamdar & Ors.

30 Jun 2022 · R.I. Chagla J.

The Bombay High Court held that a valid family settlement agreement is enforceable by specific performance in Civil Court despite pending NCLT proceedings, granting interim injunction to protect Plaintiffs’ rights under the agreement.

civil appeal_allowed Significant family settlement specific performance Companies Act 2013 Section 430 Companies Act

Damu Ramu Avhad v. The State of Maharashtra

30 Jun 2022 · V. G. Bisht
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court set aside the conviction of a police officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to lack of evidence proving demand and acceptance of bribe, emphasizing the necessity of corroboration and proper investigation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 demand and acceptance of bribe corruption trap recovery of tainted money

Hemant Vasant Jagtap v. Haji Abdul Malik Haji Yunusisa

30 Jun 2022 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that police protection can be granted under Section 151 CPC to enforce a temporary injunction order amid admitted violation and apprehension of violence, even if an appeal is pending and relief under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC has not been sought.

civil petition_allowed Significant temporary injunction police protection Section 151 CPC Order 39 Rule 2A CPC

Chairman Dr. D Y Patil Education Enterprise Charitable Trust v. Soma Seriac

30 Jun 2022 · G. S. Kulkarni

The Bombay High Court held that a Grievances Committee's decision without statutory quorum under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, is invalid, and majority decision rules under Section 69 do not apply to it.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Grievances Committee Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 statutory quorum majority decision

Prakash Tatoba Toraskar v. Income-tax Officer 24(3)(1) Mumbai & Ors.

30 Jun 2022 · Dhiraj Singh Thakur; Kamal Khata
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act in the name of a deceased person are invalid unless legal heirs submit to the jurisdiction, and set aside such notices and orders issued against the deceased assessee.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 148 Income Tax Act Reassessment proceedings Deceased assessee Legal heirs

Ramesh Bapurao Padmawar v. The State of Maharashtra

30 Jun 2022 · Amit Borkar
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Bombay High Court held that a liquor license transfer obtained by forged documents and impersonation is void and can be recalled by the authority, quashing appellate orders that legitimized the fraudulent transfer.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant fraud vitiates all license transfer forgery impersonation

Parvez Farukh Dalvi v. State of Maharashtra

29 Jun 2022 · Revati Mohite Dere; V. G. Bisht

The Bombay High Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges due to failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the importance of credible circumstantial evidence and timely witness reporting.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC dowry death Section 304-B IPC

Rabia Khan v. Union of India

29 Jun 2022 · A.S. Gadkari; Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition seeking further investigation and formation of SIT after CBI's thorough probe and commencement of trial, emphasizing adherence to due process and rejecting attempts to pre-judge the nature of death.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant abetment of suicide further investigation Special Investigation Team Central Bureau of Investigation

Safiakhatoon Kamal Ahmed Khan and Ors. v. Farooq Merchant and Anr.

28 Jun 2022 · Anuja Prabhudessai

The court held that legal representatives of a deceased rider responsible for a self-accident cannot claim compensation under Sections 166 or 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, dismissing the appeal.

motor_vehicles appeal_dismissed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 Section 163-A no-fault liability

Rahul Hiraman Birhade v. Union of India

28 Jun 2022 · Dipankar Datta, M. S. Karnik

The Bombay High Court upheld removal of a CISF constable for unauthorized absence and disobedience, applying the doctrine of proportionality to affirm the penalty as justified and not excessive.

service_law petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings unauthorized absence doctrine of proportionality removal from service

Rajiv Singh v. The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.

27 Jun 2022 · Dipankar Datta, CJ; V. G. Bisht, J.

The Bombay High Court quashed the dismissal of a seafarer for taking other employment without inquiry, emphasizing natural justice and ordered payment of retiral benefits and partial back wages.

labor petition_allowed Significant natural justice dismissal without inquiry INSA–MUI Agreement Clause 29

J.V. Salunke v. The Director-General, Central Industrial Security Force and Ors.

27 Jun 2022 · Dipankar Datta, CJ; M. S. Karnik, J.

The Bombay High Court set aside the disciplinary removal of a CISF constable for procedural violations and insufficient evidence, directing reinstatement for completion of inquiry in compliance with natural justice.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary inquiry natural justice CISF Rules 2001 Article 14

Shri Dattatray Krishnaji Pawar v. Union of India & Ors.

27 Jun 2022 · Dipankar Datta, CJ; M. S. Karnik, J.

The Bombay High Court held that a transfer order is not punitive unless it affects pay or status, transfers on grounds of misbehaviour do not require prior inquiry, and disciplinary proceedings must be conducted independently of Tribunal observations.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant transfer order punitive transfer disciplinary proceedings Fundamental Rules 15

Mohammad Raisuddin v. The National Investigating Agency

27 Jun 2022 · Revati Mohite Dere; V. G. Bisht

The Bombay High Court granted bail to the appellant accused under UAPA, emphasizing the constitutional right to speedy trial and insufficient prima facie evidence despite statutory bail restrictions.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail UAPA Section 43-D(5) speedy trial

The Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation

24 Jun 2022 · Bharati Dangre, J.

The Bombay High Court upheld that BCCI is covered as a 'shop' under the Employees State Insurance Act due to its systematic commercial activities, making it liable to pay ESI contributions.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 shop definition systematic commercial activity BCCI

Sandesh Sonu Gawalkar v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

24 Jun 2022 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of a demolition notice under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act for ongoing unauthorized construction and dismissed the appellant's plea for interim injunction.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Section 354A Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act unauthorized construction tenantable repairs interim injunction

Sanjay Janardan Dukre v. State of Maharashtra

23 Jun 2022 · Revati Mohite Dere; V. G. Bisht

The court held that acquittal due to invalid sanction is null and void, allowing fresh prosecution after valid sanction without violating double jeopardy protections.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sanction for prosecution double jeopardy Section 300 Cr.P.C.

Abasaheb Anandrao Tambe v. Kunal Arun Bendbhar

23 Jun 2022 · N.J. Jamadar
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The High Court restored the disqualification of a Village Panchayat member for encroachment by his father on government land, emphasizing purposive interpretation of disqualification provisions to prevent conflict of interest.

administrative petition_allowed Significant disqualification encroachment Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 Section 14(1)(j-3)

Morena Foods Private Limited v. Sharda Jangannath Jambhulkar and Ors.

22 Jun 2022 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that prior permission of the State Government under the Proviso to Section 257(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is mandatory before initiating proceedings after five years, and post-facto permission granted during revision is invalid.

property appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 Section 257(1) prior permission mutation entry