High Court of Bombay

3,981 judgments

Year:

Wadhwa Group Housing Private Ltd. v. Mr. Vijay Choksi & Ors.

04 Dec 2017 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that all promoters registered under a real estate project are jointly liable to refund amounts with interest under RERA, regardless of which promoter received payment, dismissing the appeal of a promoter denying liability.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 promoter liability joint development agreement refund with interest

The Deputy Director and Ors. v. Vijaya Balbhim Mali and Ors.

27 Nov 2017 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court set aside the Industrial Court's order granting permanency to daily wage social forestry workers, holding that mere long service without proper appointment does not confer permanency under constitutional and statutory law.

labour appeal_allowed Significant permanency daily wage workers social forestry Kalelkar Award

Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking v. Kishor Gulab Salve

22 Nov 2017 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order reinstating a disabled employee dismissed for unauthorized absence, holding that dismissal was victimization violating disability protection laws and directing partial backwages and continuity of service.

labor petition_dismissed Significant disability certificate Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 victimization unauthorized absence

Estella Fernandes v. Swarna Highrise Constructions

15 Nov 2017 · G. S. Kulkarni; R. N. Laddha

Minority tenants cannot stall redevelopment by refusing agreements or claiming ownership rights beyond tenancy entitlements under DCPR 2034; redevelopment may proceed with majority consent and statutory compliance.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement fungible Floor Space Index tenant rights

State of Maharashtra v. Rajagonda Bhimgonda Patil

15 Nov 2017 · M. S. Sonak; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court dismissed the State's Review Petition and application for condonation of a 4-year delay, holding that subsequent overruling of precedent is not a ground for review and that inordinate delay without sufficient cause cannot be condoned even for the State.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Review Petition Condonation of Delay Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC Subsequent Overruling of Precedent

Mumbai Fire Services Union v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

10 Nov 2017 · Amit Borkar, J.
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that the Fire Brigade Department of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai is part of the same industrial establishment under labour law, restoring the Labour Court's finding and remitting the unfair labour practice complaint for final adjudication.

labor appeal_allowed Significant industrial establishment functional integrality Municipal Corporation Fire Brigade Department

M/s. Ashwini General Hospital & Intensive Care Centre v. Veronica Johnson Pereira

06 Nov 2017 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld the illegality of the respondent’s termination but modified reinstatement with backwages to a Rs. 10 lakh compensation award, rejecting the petitioner’s false resignation defence.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant wrongful termination industrial dispute reinstatement backwages

CLSA India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

02 Nov 2017 · DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR; KAMAL KHATAF

The Bombay High Court held that reassessment notices and orders issued in the name of a non-existent company post-amalgamation are invalid and set aside the impugned proceedings.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 14 notice amalgamation non-existent company

Siemens Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-8(2)(1), Mumbai

02 Nov 2017 · Dhiraj Singh Thakur; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court held that a reopening notice under Section 148 issued to a company that ceased to exist due to amalgamation is invalid and quashed the notice and related order.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 148 Income Tax Act amalgamation non-existing company reopening assessment

Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd. v. Union of India

02 Nov 2017 · Dhiraj Singh Thakur; Kamal Khata
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued in the name of a non-existent amalgamated company is void and set aside the reassessment notice accordingly.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 notice Scheme of amalgamation Non-existent entity

M/s. Shree Durga Trading Co. v. Ateeq Anwar Agboatwala and Anr.

31 Oct 2017 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Court held that unauthorized subletting constitutes a continuing wrong resetting limitation, upheld eviction decrees on bonafide requirement and comparative hardship, and dismissed the tenant's revision application.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant eviction unauthorized subletting limitation continuing wrong

Smt. Chabibai Ananta Khandagale & Ors. v. Mr. Sayad Ali Mohiddin & The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd

01 Oct 2017 · S.G. Dige

The Bombay High Court held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has the power to enhance compensation beyond the amount claimed in the petition, allowing the appellants' appeal for increased compensation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act Section 168 compensation enhancement Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Bhagyashri Ganesh Gaikwad

01 Oct 2017 · S. G. DIGE

The Bombay High Court upheld the insurer's liability for compensation despite the vehicle being driven outside the permitted district and ruled that remarriage of the widow does not bar her claim for compensation.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Motor Vehicles Act Compensation Insurance liability Breach of permit

Bindu Narang v. Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd.

26 Sep 2017 · M. S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain

The High Court held that denial of cross-examination by the Permanent Lok Adalat in the presence of disputed facts violates natural justice and quashed the recovery order.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Permanent Lok Adalat cross-examination natural justice Section 22-D Legal Services Authorities Act

Erach Khavar v. Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd.

26 Sep 2017 · Chief Justice; Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld the setting aside of a majority arbitral award, holding that confirmed trades without timely objection cannot be invalidated for lack of pre-trade authorization under NSE regulations.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Section 37 pre-trade authorization

ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1) & Ors.

21 Sep 2017 · M. S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court quashed a reassessment notice issued beyond four years under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for lack of failure to disclose material facts and impermissible change of opinion.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 147 Income-tax Act Section 148 Income-tax Act reassessment notice failure to disclose material facts

Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

21 Aug 2017 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

The court held that setting aside an arbitral award under limited judicial review does not constitute final merits adjudication, permitting fresh arbitration and appointing a sole arbitrator accordingly.

arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitral Award Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 37 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

M/s. Sowil Limited v. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Bhusawal

18 Aug 2017 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld a contractual clause limiting arbitration to claims up to 20% of contract value, dismissing the appointment of arbitrator for claims exceeding this cap as outside the arbitration agreement's scope.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Arbitration agreement Restrictive arbitration clause

Bombay Textile Research Association v. Nilkanth Enterprise

05 Aug 2017 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award granting specific performance of a development agreement formed by multiple instruments, rejecting the petitioner's challenge on jurisdictional and execution grounds under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant specific performance arbitral award arbitration jurisdiction development agreement

M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

29 Jul 2017 · M.S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court allowed the petitioner’s claim for transitional credit under GST by permitting manual revision of excise returns filed prior to GST implementation, rejecting the respondents’ electronic filing and time bar objections.

tax appeal_allowed Significant transitional credit Section 140 CGST Act Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 manual filing of excise returns