High Court of Bombay
4,043 judgments
Fabricship Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that transportation of exempted imported machinery to the owner's own factory without an e-way bill attracts a limited penalty of Rs.25,000/- under MGST Act, rejecting the imposition of penalty based on tax payable.
Fabricship Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India & Ors.
The court held that transportation of exempted imported machinery to the petitioner's own factory does not attract GST, limiting penalty under Section 129(1)(a) to Rs.25,000 and modifying the impugned order accordingly.
Pidilite Industries Limited v. Riya Chemy
The Bombay High Court granted interim injunction to Pidilite Industries restraining the defendant from using the deceptively similar R-SEAL mark and trade dress, holding it infringed the plaintiff's prior registered trademark M-SEAL and copyrights.
Damu Deoram Bhosale v. Maharashtra State Boar Development Corporation
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions against a private contractor for encroachment and debris dumping on agricultural land, holding that such private disputes must be resolved through civil suits and not writ jurisdiction.
Kartik Kumar Naidu v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
The Bombay High Court granted bail to the applicant in a sexual assault and cheating case, holding that consent obtained under a false pretext of marriage is inapplicable when both parties are married, and that the prolonged consensual relationship negates the allegation of force.
Vishwanath Sahadu Wakhare & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that land converted to old tenure under the Watan Abolition Act is transferable without permission, and a belated challenge to mutation entries certifying such sale after 42 years is barred by limitation and res judicata.
Akhil Bharat Krishi Go Seva Sangh v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking payment of disputed government grants for fodder camps, holding that serious factual disputes require trial and cannot be resolved under summary writ jurisdiction.
Umesh Navnitlal Shah HUF v. Income Tax Officer – Circle 18(3)(5)
The Bombay High Court held that the petitioner’s case was a non-search case requiring computation of disputed tax at 100% under the DTVSV Act and rejected belated additional grounds challenging LTCG additions, directing issuance of revised tax computation accordingly.
Faiyyaz Mullaji v. The Secretary, Urban Development Department and Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that additional FSI granted for construction of a star graded hotel in the No Development Zone was unauthorized under the applicable Development Control Regulations, allowing the PIL challenging such permissions to proceed.
Osho International Foundation v. Mr. Kishor Raval alias Swami Anandi
The Bombay High Court upheld the Charity Commissioner's rejection of a public trust's application to sell immovable property, affirming the Commissioner's inquisitorial powers to order a special audit and emphasizing the necessity of genuine financial need for alienation under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.
Mistry Park CHS Ltd. v. Dr. Bharat Prem Shivdasani & Dr. Haresh Prem Shivdasani
The Bombay High Court upheld the Registrar's orders granting regular membership to garage occupants in a Co-operative Housing Society, interpreting 'flat' broadly under the amended Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and rejecting the Society's jurisdictional and bye-law objections.
Shailesh Mulchand Savla v. The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the termination of the petitioner as Developer under section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act for intentional delay and nonperformance in completing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, affirming the CEO/SRA and AGRC orders.
Gourang Anil Wakade v. Income Tax Officer
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment notices under Sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act issued to a deceased person are void ab initio and cannot bind legal heirs.
Crosseas Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India
The Bombay High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging SEBI show cause notices, holding that objections including res judicata and jurisdictional challenges must be decided together by the adjudicating authority without treating them as preliminary issues to prevent undue delay.
Irwin Edmund Sequeira and Ors. v. MV Karnika
The Bombay High Court held that expenses incurred by the P&I Correspondent for unpaid crew wages and necessities before court approval cannot be treated as Sheriff’s expenses payable with priority from sale proceeds without prior leave, and the claim must await final adjudication.
Saraswatibai Bishwambarlal Charity Trust v. Gopal Traders Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that a suit challenging a deed granting easementary right for valuable consideration must be valued under Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, and upheld the return of plaint for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court.
Nitin Kantilal Gandhi; Apurva Ashwin Desai v. Sanket Cooperative Housing Society Limited; State of Maharashtra
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that pre-registration agreements do not bind a cooperative society unless ratified, general body resolutions are presumed valid unless directly challenged, and interim relief cannot nullify such resolutions without foundational pleadings.
Pradeep Kumar Lalit Kumar Pandya v. Harisingh J. Kapadia & Ors.
The Court upheld dismissal of Plaintiff's claim for transmission of tenancy rights under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, holding he failed to prove family membership and residence with deceased tenant at time of death.
Chetan Samajik Pratishthan & Anr. v. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Anr.
The Bombay High Court held that the Municipal Corporation must provide and maintain adequate sanitation facilities in slum areas on municipal land, recognizing access to sanitation as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Siddhi Developers v. The Joint Commissioner
The Bombay High Court held that delay in filing an appeal beyond the maximum three-month period prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 is not condonable by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal, and dismissed the appellant's appeal accordingly.