High Court of Bombay

3,981 judgments

Year:

Dilip Gangaram Patil v. Additional/Joint/Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

31 Dec 2015 · M. S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening notice under Section 148 for AY 2013-14, holding that reopening is impermissible after revisional proceedings under Section 263 and in absence of failure to disclose material facts.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 notice Section 263 proceedings Reopening assessment

Dr. Pradeep Mehta v. Union of India

30 Nov 2015 · G. S. Kulkarni; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court upheld SEBI's regulatory power to freeze promoter demat accounts for non-compliance with listing obligations, dismissing the petitioner's challenge to the freezing of his accounts despite his claimed lack of control over the company.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant SEBI Act SEBI (LODR) Regulations 2015 freezing of demat accounts promoter liability

Santosh Anant Sabale v. Mathuradas Morarji

25 Nov 2015 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The High Court upheld the eviction decree on unlawful subletting grounds, holding that the tenant failed to rebut the landlord's prima facie proof of exclusive possession by a third party.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant unlawful subletting burden of proof exclusive possession tenant and landlord

Shashikiran Janardhan Shetty v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

24 Nov 2015 · Dhiraj Singh Thakur; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment beyond four years requires tangible material of non-disclosure by the assessee, and transactions of a separate legal entity cannot justify reopening the assessee’s assessment.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 notice Reopening of assessment Reason to believe

District Sindhudurg v. Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank

17 Nov 2015 · Nitin Jamdar; M. M. Sathaye

The Bombay High Court held that employees who resigned retain their accrued statutory right to encash privilege leave, and refusal to pay such encashment without statutory authority is arbitrary and unlawful.

labor petition_allowed Significant privilege leave leave encashment resignation service regulations

Bks Galaxy Realtors LLP v. Sharp Properties & Ors.

05 Nov 2015 · R. I. Chagla

The Bombay High Court held that the arbitration clause in an Agreement for Sale ceases upon execution of the Conveyance Deed, and subsidiary documents without specific arbitration clauses are not covered, dismissing the appeal to refer the suit to arbitration.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration Clause Agreement for Sale Conveyance Deed Section 8 Arbitration Act

Bank of Maharashtra v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

02 Nov 2015 · G. S. Kulkarni; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Cites 2 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that a customs authority’s letter restraining a bank from enforcing security interest under the SARFAESI Act is invalid, affirming the bank’s priority as a secured creditor over customs claims.

civil petition_allowed Significant SARFAESI Act Customs Act Section 142A Section 35 SARFAESI

Vishwesh Dogra Suvarna v. State of Maharashtra

31 Oct 2015 · Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal and declared a missing person presumed dead after seven years of absence based on circumstantial evidence and statutory presumption under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant presumption of death missing person Section 108 Indian Evidence Act circumstantial evidence

Pen Municipal Council v. Shekhar B. Abhang

30 Oct 2015 · SANDEEP V. MARNE

The Bombay High Court upheld the Industrial Court’s order directing regularization of a temporary Tax Inspector appointed against a sanctioned post following due process and long continuous service, dismissing the Municipal Council’s challenge.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant regularization of service temporary appointment unfair labour practice Industrial Court powers

State of Maharashtra v. M/s Patwardhan Infrasturcture Pvt. Ltd.

23 Oct 2015 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court set aside an arbitral award that wrongly converted a force majeure clause into a guaranteed minimum return clause, holding such interpretation manifestly perverse and contrary to public policy.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 force majeure clause contract interpretation business efficacy test

Piramal Enterprises Limited v. The State of Maharashtra

15 Oct 2015 · G. S. Kulkarni; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court upheld the taxability of transfer of intellectual property rights in a slump sale under the MVAT Act, affirmed the reviewing authority's jurisdiction, and dismissed the writ petition challenging the review order and demand notice.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 slump sale transfer of business intellectual property rights

Lotus Logistics and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Evertop Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited

15 Oct 2015 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award directing specific performance of a terminated development agreement based on the developer's admissions and ordered damages for failure to procure occupation certificate.

civil petition_dismissed Significant specific performance termination of contract arbitral award occupation certificate

Jalaram Ashish Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. The Competent Authority and the District Deputy Registrar and Ors.

07 Oct 2015 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that the Competent Authority must convey the entire land as per MOFA agreements and condoned delay caused by management issues and COVID-19, setting aside the partial conveyance order and remanding for fresh decision.

property appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1964 Section 11 MOFA unilateral deemed conveyance conveyance of land

Babasaheb Bhau Kamble v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

05 Oct 2015 · DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR; SANDEEP V. MARNE
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court set aside the promotion of respondent No.4 to Health Executive Officer for non-fulfillment of eligibility service and directed reconsideration of the petitioner’s promotion based on seniority and merit.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant promotion seniority reservation disciplinary proceedings

Shri Bipin Badani v. Union of India

19 Aug 2015 · G. S. Kulkarni; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court held that denial of cross-examination of witnesses in Customs adjudication proceedings does not violate natural justice when ample corroborative evidence exists and an efficacious statutory appeal remedy is available.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Section 138B natural justice cross-examination

The Trustees of American School Bombay Education Trust v. The Union of India

17 Aug 2015 · DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR; KAMAL KHATA

The Bombay High Court held that an educational institution existing solely for education and not for profit is entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act despite part of its income and expenditure occurring outside India, limiting the scope of inquiry at approval stage to existence alone.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 10(23C)(vi) Income Tax Act educational institution exemption foreign receipts and expenditure SAIESF

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Maya Govind Patel

29 Jul 2015 · Abhay Ahuja

The Bombay High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal, upholding the Tribunal's award of compensation for death caused by rash and negligent driving of an insured vehicle, emphasizing the insurer's failure to disprove vehicle involvement or breach of policy.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Compensation Insurance liability

Ashok Kacharu Gaikwad v. Rev. Samuel Shankar Chandekar & Ors.

10 Jul 2015 · Sandeep V. Marne · 2026:BHC-AS:10243

The Bombay High Court upheld a decree under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act restoring possession to Plaintiffs, holding that mere occupation as a caretaker does not confer settled possession.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Section 6 Specific Relief Act possession dispossession caretaker possession

Crystal Construction Company v. State of Maharashtra

18 Jun 2015 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 40

The Bombay High Court held that the predetermined auction price fixed by the Charity Commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act is the true market value for stamp duty levy under the first Proviso to Rule 4(6) of the Maharashtra Stamp Rules, but the Collector of Stamps may verify the sale process as per Circular dated 13 October 2006 before adjudication.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Stamp Rules 1995 Charity Commissioner Market value Stamp duty

Wipro Limited v. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd. & State of Maharashtra

27 May 2015 · Alok Aradhe, CJ; Sandeep V. Marne, J

The Bombay High Court held that in absence of a forfeiture clause, MADC cannot forfeit Wipro's advance payment for land allotment and ordered refund with interest, excusing delay due to ongoing negotiations.

civil petition_allowed Significant forfeiture of advance payment Letter of Acceptance delay and laches writ jurisdiction