High Court of Bombay

3,981 judgments

Year:

Fcbulka Advertising Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income

29 Nov 2018 · M.S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court quashed the rejection of a DDT refund claim for lack of procedural fairness, held that a preliminary communication is not a final statutory order under Section 237 of the Income Tax Act, and directed fresh adjudication with opportunity of hearing.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Dividend Distribution Tax Income Tax Act Section 237 Refund claim Statutory order

Jogesh Pranlal Patel v. Shivaji Nagar She Ganesh CHS Ltd.

20 Nov 2018 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld the Deputy Registrar's order granting cooperative society membership to petitioners post-MHADA conveyance, setting aside the Divisional Joint Registrar's remand order.

civil petition_allowed Significant Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 membership transfer MHADA permission conveyance deed

Mrs. Shaila Tanaji Patil v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission

11 Oct 2018 · A. S. Chandurkar; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court held that a candidate possessing a valid sports certificate prior to application and submitting its verification at interview cannot be disqualified for non-submission of the certificate with the application, allowing her appointment as Police Sub-Inspector.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Sports Verification Certificate Reservation in Police Recruitment Administrative Tribunal Article 226

Hamid Narendra Dabholkar & Ors. v. Sanatan Sanstha & Ors.

11 Oct 2018 · N.J. Jamadar
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court allowed transfer of defamation suits filed by Sanatan Sanstha from Goa to Maharashtra courts, holding that reasonable apprehension of threat to life and fair trial justifies transfer under Section 24 of the CPC by the common High Court.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 24 Code of Civil Procedure transfer of suit Bombay High Court jurisdiction Sanatan Sanstha

Oyster Ship Management Private Limited & Ors. v. M/s. Bhavsar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

10 Oct 2018 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld the lawful compromise between Plaintiffs and certain Defendants for development and possession of commercial units, allowing suit abandonment against others while preserving their independent rights.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XXIII Code of Civil Procedure Compromise of suit Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act SAFEMA forfeiture

Shrikisan Narayanrao Solanki & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

04 Oct 2018 · Dhiraj Singh Thakur; Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that Assistant Teachers in Zilla Parishad Primary Schools are eligible to participate in the 2017 Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for Deputy Education Officer under the District Technical Services stream, setting aside the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's dismissal.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Deputy Education Officer District Technical Services Maharashtra Education Service

Aditya Birla Finance Limited v. Debojyoti Paul

13 Sep 2018 · Advait M. Sethna

The Bombay High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under a valid arbitration clause in a deed of guarantee, rejecting the respondent's objection based on pending SARFAESI proceedings.

commercial_arbitration appeal_allowed Significant arbitration clause deed of guarantee Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act SARFAESI Act

Dr. Nikhil Shah & Ors. v. The Pune Cantonment Board & Ors.

11 Sep 2018 · Alok Aradhe, CJ; Sandeep V. Marne, J.

The Bombay High Court upheld the use of Hadapsar Industrial Estate land for solid waste processing by Pune Cantonment Board and Pune Municipal Corporation under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, dismissing petitions seeking its relocation outside Pune city limits.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 Municipal solid waste Dump site suitability Pune Cantonment Board

Samir Narain Bhojwani v. Siddhivinayak Realtors LLP

07 Sep 2018 · Amit Borkar
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The court held that membership proceedings under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act are limited to membership entitlement and do not adjudicate ownership rights, dismissing challenges based on a set-aside arbitral award and emphasizing exhaustion of statutory remedies.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act Section 23(2) membership entitlement arbitral award set aside

Shree Khambhati Modh Vanik Samaj v. State of Maharashtra

28 Aug 2018 · N. J. Jamadar

The Bombay High Court held that only trustees or beneficiaries deriving benefit under the trust qualify as "persons having interest" entitled to intervene in section 36 proceedings, and persons with adverse contractual interests cannot intervene before the Charity Commissioner.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 Section 36 person having interest Charity Commissioner

Fortune Developers and Infrastructure v. Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors.

09 Aug 2018 · M. S. Sonak; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court quashed the stop work order against a construction project near Yerawada Central Prison, holding that the prison rules do not restrict construction beyond prison perimeter walls and that the petitioner’s property rights were unlawfully infringed.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Stop Work Notice Maharashtra Prisons Rules 1964 Property Rights Article 300A Buffer Zone

NTPC BHEL Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Electricals & Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd.

06 Aug 2018 · G. S. Kulkarni; Advait M. Sethna · 2025:BHC-AS:12377-DB

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the delay in filing the Section 34 application challenging the arbitral award was condonable under Section 14 of the Limitation Act due to bona fide prosecution of a prior writ petition and COVID-19 limitation extensions.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 application Limitation Section 14 Limitation Act

Ashok Gangadhar Puranik & Atul Gangadhar Puranik v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

02 Aug 2018 · G. S. Kulkarni; Somasekhar Sundaresan
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that the Court Receiver was discharged before acquisition, upheld the validity of compensation paid to landowners, quashed State's refund demands, dismissed challenges by Ranjit, and directed completion of acquisition with costs against vexatious litigant.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition Court Receiver advance compensation family partition suit

M/s. Magnum Opus IT Consulting Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Artcad Systems

31 Jul 2018 · Nitin Jamdar; Bharati H. Dangre; Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court Full Bench held that Single Judge jurisdiction under Rule 18(3) extends to all quasi-judicial orders under any legislation, overruling conflicting Division Bench decisions.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Rule 18 Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 Single Judge jurisdiction Division Bench jurisdiction quasi-judicial orders

Bhawarlal Parasmal Joshi v. The Solapur Municipal Corporation & Ors.

31 Jul 2018 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that successors-in-title of lessees have a right to seek renewal, not extension, of municipal lease, and the Municipal Corporation must consider renewal applications without arbitrary eviction.

property appeal_dismissed Significant lease renewal lease extension municipal property Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act 1949

Mohammed Zain Khan v. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

05 Jul 2018 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that complaints under Section 31 of RERA are maintainable only for projects liable to registration, dismissing the appellant's claim against an unregistered agricultural land project not capable of registration.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Real Estate Regulatory Authority RERA Section 31 complaint Non-registration

M/s. Pragatej Builders And Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Abhishek Anuj Sukhadia and Mrs. Chaya Anuj Sukhadia

04 Jul 2018 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld MahaRERA's order directing the promoter to pay interest from the original possession date under the sale agreement, rejecting the promoter's claim that the revised project completion date or COVID-19 moratorium exempted it from liability.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Section 18 RERA Section 4(2)(l)(C) RERA interest on delayed possession

Manvi Hakka Sanrakshan and Jagruti v. Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra and Ors.

04 Jul 2018 · M. S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court quashed a Charity Commissioner circular directing trusts to remove phrases like 'corruption eradication' and 'human rights' from their names, holding such objectives fall within charitable purposes under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the circular lacked statutory authority.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 Charitable purposes Revised Circular No.543 Charity Commissioner

Subrat Kumar Sahoo v. Mumbai University and College Tribunal & Ors.

03 Jul 2018 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld reinstatement after wrongful termination without enquiry, allowed fresh enquiry with subsistence allowance during enquiry period, and set aside denial of backwages pending enquiry.

labor petition_allowed Significant termination of service disciplinary enquiry reinstatement with continuity subsistence allowance

Dhondu Sakharam Tambe & Rupali Dhondu Tambe v. The Union of India

03 Jul 2018 · Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court allowed compensation to the parents of a deceased train passenger based on circumstantial evidence and established bonafide passenger status despite non-reporting of the incident to railway officials.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Railways Act 1989 Railway Claims Tribunal compensation claim untoward incident