High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

Nimesh J. Patel v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

14 Dec 2021 · Bharati Dangre

The Bombay High Court held that a registered deed of confirmation cures non-registration of a conveyance deed and that the property owner is a necessary party in suits challenging municipal demolition notices affecting their property.

civil appeal_allowed Significant necessary party proper party deed of conveyance deed of confirmation

Vijay Pandurang Sawant and Ors. v. Savitribai Phule Pune University and Ors.

14 Dec 2021 · R. D. Dhanuka; Abhay Ahuja

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking regularization of adhoc university employees, holding that only those with ten or more years of service on sanctioned posts prior to 2006 are entitled to absorption under the Umadevi judgment.

labor petition_dismissed Significant regularization adhoc employees sanctioned posts Umadevi judgment

Prashant Jankar v. The State of Maharashtra

14 Dec 2021 · SANDEEP K. SHINDE
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The court held that an error in sanction granted by an incompetent authority under the Prevention of Corruption Act does not vitiate criminal proceedings unless it causes failure of justice, and such validity can be examined only after evidence is led during trial.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act Section 19(3) sanction validity failure of justice

Hemant Dhirajlal Banker v. The State of Maharashtra and another

14 Dec 2021 · Nitin Jamdar; Sarang V. Kotwal
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court upheld the FIR and the MCOCA approval against the applicant, ruling that cognizable offences of criminal intimidation and organized crime were made out, and limited judicial review applies to such approvals.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant quashing of FIR Section 387 IPC Section 506 IPC MCOCA approval

State of Maharashtra v. Shivlal Punaji Parmar

14 Dec 2021 · S.S. Shinde; N.J. Jamadar

The Bombay High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused for murder under Section 302 IPC due to insufficient evidence of homicidal death and intention.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 302 IPC murder intention to cause death medical evidence

Rajneesh Nanjoo Yadav v. ASR Construction Co. & Anr

14 Dec 2021 · Bharati Dangre

The Bombay High Court allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that a 68% physical disability for a driver equates to 68% loss of earning capacity, and recalculated compensation accordingly under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

labor appeal_allowed Significant loss of earning capacity permanent physical disability Workmen’s Compensation Act driver occupation

Punia Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

14 Dec 2021 · DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR; ABHAY AHUJA

The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for AY 2015-16 due to contradictory reasons and non-application of mind by the assessing officer, holding that reopening beyond four years requires clear reasons showing failure to disclose material facts.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income-tax Act, 1961 Section 147 Section 148 Reopening of assessment

State of Maharashtra v. Jivan Mahadev Kamble

13 Dec 2021 · S. S. Shinde; S. P. Tavade

The Bombay High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused under Section 326 IPC due to inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and lack of motive.

criminal appeal_dismissed Section 326 IPC grievous hurt injured witness benefit of doubt

Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne & Anr. v. Pyrotek India Private Limited & Ors.

13 Dec 2021 · Bharati Dangre
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that the Supreme Court's COVID-19 extension of limitation applies only to prescribed limitation periods and does not extend the discretionary period for filing written statements beyond 120 days in commercial suits, dismissing the defendants' writ petition.

civil petition_dismissed Significant limitation period written statement Order 8 Rule 1 CPC commercial suit

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sabrunnisha Vakil Khan & Ors.

10 Dec 2021 · Bharati Dangre

The Bombay High Court upheld the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal's finding of composite negligence and apportioned liability between two vehicles in a fatal accident, dismissing the insurer's appeal challenging the liability ratio.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant composite negligence contributory negligence motor accident claim joint tortfeasors

Shri Mahesh Forge v. Kamal Dev Prasad

10 Dec 2021 · Bharati Dangre
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act must be proportionate to the assessed percentage of permanent disablement as per Schedule I, and reversed an award of 100% compensation when the disablement was only 34%.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 permanent partial disablement permanent total disablement loss of earning capacity

Sushma Shivkumar Daga & Anr. v. Madhurkumar Ramkrishnaji Bajaj & Ors.

10 Dec 2021 · Bharati Dangre

The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court's order referring a property dispute involving development agreements to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, dismissing the petitioners' challenge to the arbitration clause's applicability.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration Agreement Section 8 Arbitration Act Prima Facie Validity Arbitrability

Mohammed Ali Abdul Samad Khan v. Dawood Mohd. Khati

10 Dec 2021 · Bharati Dangre

The Bombay High Court held that minors employed and injured during course of employment are entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the insurer cannot be absolved of liability on account of the employee's minority.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 minor employee insurance liability employer-employee relationship

Jetha Properties Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Income Tax

09 Dec 2021 · K. R. Shriram; Amit B. Borkar

The Bombay High Court held that expenditure incurred to raise the floor height of a warehouse to prevent water damage and ensure business continuity is revenue expenditure and deductible for income tax purposes.

tax appeal_allowed Significant revenue expenditure capital expenditure warehouse floor height

Union of India v. M/s. Dodsal Ltd.

09 Dec 2021 · K. R. Shriram; Amit B. Borkar

The Bombay High Court held that interest liability under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act is extinguished when the principal tax amount is reduced or extinguished by an appellate order, and refused to interfere with the Settlement Commission's order reducing interest liability.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 220(2) Interest liability Income Tax Settlement Commission

State of Maharashtra v. Navnath Abu Londhe

09 Dec 2021 · S.S. Shinde; Surendra P. Tavade

The Bombay High Court dismissed the State's appeal upholding the acquittal of the accused due to infirmities in prosecution evidence and a credible alibi.

criminal appeal_dismissed Acquittal Alibi Benefit of doubt Contradictions in evidence

Kashinath Narayan Gharat v. The State of Maharashtra

09 Dec 2021 · Anuja Prabhudessai

The Bombay High Court held that refusal to marry after a consensual sexual relationship does not amount to cheating under Section 417 IPC absent evidence of a false promise made in bad faith.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant consent false promise of marriage Section 417 IPC Section 90 IPC

Nayana Sudhir Shah v. Sudhir Premji Shah

09 Dec 2021 · A. S. Gadkari

The Bombay High Court dismissed the review petition, affirming the binding nature of a prior coordinate Bench decision interpreting the Senior Citizens Act and holding that a subsequent elaborative decision did not warrant review.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Section 4 Section 23 Review Petition

P. S.C. Pacific v. The State of Maharashtra

09 Dec 2021 · S.J. Kathawalla; Milind N. Jadhav

The High Court held that excavation of earth incidental to construction under valid development permission, used on the same plot, does not attract royalty under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and quashed the levy and related orders.

administrative petition_allowed Significant excavation minor minerals royalty Section 48 MLR Code

Paranjape Schemes (Construction) Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra

09 Dec 2021 · S.J. Kathawalla; Milind N. Jadhav · 2018(1) Mh.L.J. 332

The Bombay High Court held that excavation of earth incidental to construction under valid development permission does not attract royalty liability under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, quashing the demand for royalty and penalty.

administrative petition_allowed Significant excavation minor minerals royalty Section 48 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code