High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

Suresh Eknath Kudalkar v. The State of Maharashtra

04 Mar 2022 · Sunil B. Shukre; G. A. Sanap

The Bombay High Court held that administrative cancellation of appointment approval is impermissible once judicial approval has been granted, absent fraud or misrepresentation, and quashed the cancellation order against a confirmed Shikshan Sevak.

administrative petition_allowed Significant appointment approval Shikshan Sevak Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act probation confirmation

Pandurang Narayan Kanekar v. The State of Maharashtra

04 Mar 2022 · Sunil B. Shukre; G.A. Sanap

The High Court held that a probationary appointment made following prescribed procedures cannot be cancelled without specific grounds and adherence to natural justice, especially after deemed confirmation on completion of probation.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act Shikshan Sevak appointment probationary appointment deemed confirmation

Sunil Gaurishankar Kharwar v. The State of Maharashtra

04 Mar 2022 · Sadhana S. Jadhav; Prithviraj K. Chavan

The Bombay High Court modified convictions in a robbery-murder case, acquitting one accused and convicting the other under section 397 IPC due to unreliable identification and defective recoveries.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Identification evidence Section 27 Indian Evidence Act Recovery of articles Robbery with attempt to cause grievous hurt

Mrs. Shanta Digambar Sonawane v. Union of India

04 Mar 2022 · Nitin Jamdar; M. M. Sathaye

The Bombay High Court held that recruitment authorities must provide reasonable accommodation to visually impaired candidates by allowing correction of minor procedural errors, setting aside the rejection of candidature for failure to timely update date of birth.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant reasonable accommodation Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 visual impairment disability discrimination

Rajendra Goyal alias Raju Goyal v. State of Maharashtra

03 Mar 2022 · G. S. Patel; Madhav J Jamdar

The Bombay High Court set aside a State Information Commission order directing disclosure of personal information under RTI, holding that such disclosure violates statutory exemptions and the constitutional right to privacy absent bona fide public interest.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Right to Information Act Section 8(1)(j) personal information right to privacy

The Tata Power Company Limited v. Union of India

02 Mar 2022 · A.A. Sayed; Abhay Ahuja

The Bombay High Court allowed the petition permitting commencement of a 220 KV transmission line project through mangrove areas subject to compliance with environmental clearances, compensatory afforestation, and MoEFCC guidelines, balancing public interest with environmental protection.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 Mangroves Public Trust Doctrine

Bharat Kisan Mekale v. Ravikumar Jethappa Kurne

02 Mar 2022 · Anuja Prabhudessai

The High Court held that additional evidence at appellate stage must meet strict criteria and remand orders must be exercised sparingly, setting aside the Appellate Court's remand and directing it to decide the appeal on evidence in accordance with procedural law.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 41 Rule 27 CPC additional evidence remand Order 41 Rule 23 CPC

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-2(3)

01 Mar 2022 · K.R. Shriram; N. J. Jamadar

The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening of HDFC Bank's 2006-07 income tax assessment, holding that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction due to absence of tangible material and failure to prove non-disclosure of material facts.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 147 Reopening of assessment Reason to believe

Sayyad Alfiya Fatima Ikhlas & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

01 Mar 2022 · Sunil B. Shukre; G.A. Sanap
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition seeking regularization of B.H.M.S. admissions below the prescribed NEET percentile, holding such admissions void as the Admissions Regulating Authority lacks power to relax eligibility criteria.

education petition_dismissed Significant B.H.M.S. admission NEET eligibility criteria Admissions Regulating Authority minimum educational standards

M/s. Royale Urbanspace; Rajesh Devji Bhadra; Sunil Liladhar Gajra v. State of Maharashtra; The Tahasildar, Shahapur

01 Mar 2022 · S. J. Kathawalla; Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court held that excavation of earth incidental to construction on private land reused on the same site does not attract royalty under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, quashing penalty notices against the petitioners.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 Section 48(7) minor minerals royalty

Originative Trading Private Limited v. Union of India

28 Feb 2022 · R.D. Dhanuka; S.M. Modak

The Bombay High Court held that provisional attachment orders under section 83 CGST Act must be accompanied by communication of the Commissioner's reasons to enable effective objections, dismissing the writ petition but directing compliance with procedural safeguards.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant provisional attachment section 83 CGST Act Rule 159 CGST Rules communication of reasons

Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Girish Dave

28 Feb 2022 · K. R. Shriram; N. J. Jamadar
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that payments for charter hire of vessels integrally connected with mineral oil exploration contracts are taxable under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, not as royalty, entitling the petitioner to concessional withholding tax rates.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 44BB royalty Income Tax Act 1961 non-resident taxation

M/S. Amoda Properties LLP v. Mr. Joy Mrinalkani Basu and Ors.

28 Feb 2022 · Sandeep K. Shinde

The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court's refusal to grant injunction restraining alienation of an undivided share in joint property, emphasizing that possession and injunction rights arise only after partition.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant undivided share joint property specific performance injunction

Sanghvi Premises Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajesh Mahadev Mane & Ors.

26 Feb 2022 · R.I. Chagla

The Bombay High Court held that a dispute arising from permanent alternate accommodation agreements integral to redevelopment constitutes a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and dismissed the defendants' application challenging jurisdiction.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Commercial Courts Act, 2015 commercial dispute construction contract permanent alternate accommodation agreement

Ingram Micro Inc. v. The Income Tax Officer & Ors.

26 Feb 2022 · K.R. Shriram; N.J. Jamadar

The Bombay High Court held that a holding company not making payment itself is not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195, quashing notices issued under Section 201 for alleged non-deduction of tax.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 195 Income Tax Act Tax deduction at source Assessee in default Holding company and subsidiary

Yogesh Devidas Patil & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.

26 Feb 2022 · Dipankar Datta; G. S. Kulkarni

The High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the Central Railway's recruitment process, holding that the petitioners had no vested right to appointment absent proof of arbitrariness or violation of merit-based selection.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant public employment merit list selection process Central Administrative Tribunal

Shankar Bhimrao Kadam & Ors. v. Tata Motors Limited

26 Feb 2022 · Ravindra V. Ghuge
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that temporary workers deliberately prevented from completing 240 days of continuous service are entitled to deemed permanent status, reinstatement, and back wages, rejecting the employer's claim of lawful termination under contract expiry.

labor appeal_allowed Significant temporary workers deemed permanent status Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Raju @ Rakesh Dhaniram Patel v. The State of Maharashtra

26 Feb 2022 · Sadhana S. Jadhav; Prithviraj K. Chavan

The Bombay High Court acquitted the appellant of kidnapping for ransom under section 364-A IPC due to failure of the prosecution to prove ransom demand and threat beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 364-A IPC Kidnapping for ransom Ransom demand Circumstantial evidence

Shivaji Shankara Zagade v. State of Maharashtra

26 Feb 2022 · Sadhana S. Jadhav; Prithviraj K. Chavan

The Bombay High Court acquitted the appellant of murder due to insufficient and unreliable prosecution evidence, emphasizing the necessity of proof beyond reasonable doubt and proper procedural safeguards.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant murder Section 302 IPC recovery panchanama independent panch witnesses

High Court on its own motion v. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation & Ors.

26 Feb 2022 · Dipankar Datta, CJ; G. S. Kulkarni, J.

The Bombay High Court in this suo motu PIL held municipal corporations and government authorities accountable for failing to prevent unauthorized constructions and building collapses, directing coordinated enforcement and judicial inquiry to safeguard public safety.

administrative other Significant unauthorized construction building collapse municipal corporation duties public trust doctrine