High Court of Bombay
3,981 judgments
Jobi Joseph v. M/s. Cadbury India Ltd. & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a senior sales executive engaged in supervisory duties over distributor salesmen is not an 'employee' under the MRTU & PULP Act, dismissing his challenge to termination.
SGS Infratech Limited v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006, holding that the pre-deposit of disputed tax amount as a condition for appeal is not arbitrary and does not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Avinash Dhavji Naik and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that while the MRTP Act is a self-contained code excluding certain Land Acquisition Act provisions, the acquisition awards were void for lack of prior approval and lapsed due to delay, quashing the acquisition proceedings.
Zubaida W/O. Kadar Memon & Ors. v. Khan Mubeen Ahmed Ali & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Waqf Tribunal's decree evicting alleged encroachers from Waqf property, affirming that persons interested in a Waqf can directly file suits for removal of encroachment without mandatory recourse to CEO procedures under Sections 54 and 55 of the Waqf Act.
Anish Modi v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court quashed prosecution against an independent director for non-payment of TDS due to non-service of mandatory notice under Section 2(35)(b) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the necessity of procedural compliance before initiating criminal proceedings.
Priya Sameer Holkar v. The Deputy Collector (Gad), Mumbai City
The Bombay High Court set aside the Maintenance Tribunal's order annulling gift deeds and directing property return, holding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction post transferee's death and that a daughter-in-law is not liable to maintain senior citizens unless in possession of their property.
Gamdevi Residents’ Association v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of special permission granted by the Municipal Commissioner for redevelopment of a Grade-III heritage precinct building without Heritage Conservation Committee approval and dismissed the PIL challenging the construction due to delay and compliance with Development Control Regulations.
Ms M.V.Nordlake GmbH v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that under the amended Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, a shipowner's right to limit liability is absolute and not subject to proof of personal fault or recklessness, allowing constitution of a limitation fund at an interim stage.
Archana Bhagwan Jaswani v. Empire Silk Weaving Industries
The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award, ruling that an explicit arbitration agreement and agreed exclusion of legal representation under Chamber bye-laws preclude jurisdictional challenges and do not vitiate the award.
Sunil Vishwanath Madavi & Ors. v. The Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that five buildings constructed without MMRDA permission and partly on government land are unauthorized and illegal, directing enforcement of demolition orders and rejecting invalid Panchayat permissions.
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Charu Ashok Khandal
The Bombay High Court upheld the MACT's award of Rs. 62.2 lakhs compensation for death due to accident-induced quadriplegia, affirming the nexus between injury and death and the admissibility of disability certificates as public documents.
Sugee Developers v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court set aside the order recognizing tenancy rights over a small enclosed space under a staircase for lack of pre-1996 occupation proof, emphasizing strict adherence to Government Resolution requirements and imposing exemplary costs for abuse of process.
Sanjiv Manmohan Gupta v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the State Government’s administrative allotment of a hoarding site to Respondent No. 5, dismissing the petitioner’s challenge based on prior license from Western Railways and rejecting claims of arbitrariness.
Godson A. Rodrigues v. SVC Co-operative Bank Ltd.
The Bombay High Court upheld the dismissal of a bank employee for fraudulently availing a housing loan, affirming the Labour Court’s findings and the proportionality of the penalty under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Lubna Shoukat Mujawar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The High Court upheld cancellation of a Non-Creamy Layer Certificate obtained by false information but allowed the petitioner to retain her MBBS degree under interim orders, treating her admission as Open Category with fee adjustment.
Digant Parekh (HUF) v. Akruti Kailash Construction & Ors.
The High Court held that a statutory Notification transferring appellate jurisdiction takes immediate effect divesting the earlier authority, and purchasers under a registered MOFA agreement are entitled to co-operative society membership despite unpaid dues or pending civil suits.
Electropneumatics And Hydraulics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Appasaheb M. Todmal
The Bombay High Court held that wage settlements with recognized unions bind all workmen regardless of union membership, invalidating employer-imposed conditions of signing undertakings, and that complaints for enforcement of such settlements are not barred by limitation due to continuing cause of action.
CREDAI-PUNE Metro v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that under Pune Development Control Rules, roads do not qualify as built-up area for grant of TDR, and thus dismissed writ petitions seeking additional TDR for road construction.
Sakharam Parvati Gaikwad & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the murder convictions of two appellants based on credible eyewitness and medical evidence while acquitting two others due to insufficient proof of their involvement.
Anandrao Dinkar Pachundkar v. Hon’ble Minister for Revenue & Forest Department
The Bombay High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging revenue authorities’ orders denying survey and mutation based on interpolated records, holding that title disputes must be resolved through civil suit and not writ proceedings.