High Court of Bombay

3,981 judgments

Year:

Yasin Gulab Shikalkar v. Maruti Nagnath Aware & Ors.

01 Aug 2011 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court allowed the petitioner’s writ petition directing re-measurement of disputed land by appointing a Court Commissioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, rejecting the res judicata objection and emphasizing the appellate court’s power to admit additional evidence.

civil petition_allowed Significant Court Commissioner Order 26 Rule 9 CPC Order 41 Rule 27 CPC measurement of land

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Supreme Metal Industries

01 Aug 2011 · Amit Borkar
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The High Court held that unauthorized commercial use of electricity in industrial premises attracts mandatory twice-rate penalty under Section 126, and only the registered consumer or authorized person can appeal under Section 127, rejecting tenant's claim to consumer status.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Electricity Act 2003 Section 126 Section 127 unauthorized use of electricity

Raptakos Breet & Company Ltd. v. Gajanan M. Sonawane

24 Jun 2011 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court modified orders awarding back wages to a dismissed employee, directing lump sum compensation instead, affirming limited interference with Labour Court findings under Article 227.

labor appeal_allowed Significant domestic enquiry unfair labour practice back wages dismissal from service

National Iranian Tanker Company v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd

13 Jun 2011 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award holding a demurrage claim time-barred, ruling that correspondence on undisputed invoices did not reset the limitation period under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

commercial_arbitration petition_dismissed Significant demurrage limitation period acknowledgment of liability repudiation

M/s. Satyam Construction v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Ors.

02 Jun 2011 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that stamp duty paid on a Development Agreement is refundable under the extended limitation period of the Proviso to Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, treating such agreements on par with conveyances, and awarded interest on the refund.

tax petition_allowed Significant Development Agreement Stamp Duty Refund Maharashtra Stamp Act Section 47

Sanjay Prakash Mane v. The State of Maharashtra

23 Mar 2011 · A. S. Gadkari; Shyam C. Chandak

The Bombay High Court acquitted appellants of murder charges due to unreliable eyewitness evidence but upheld their convictions for attempt to murder, granting benefit of doubt on the more serious offence.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant benefit of doubt eyewitness testimony identification parade Section 302 IPC

Vijay Madhavrao Budhale v. Bhagoji Ganu Kamble

14 Mar 2011 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that a suit for specific performance contingent on government permission is within limitation from refusal after notice, non-joinder of necessary co-owner parties is fatal, possession under Section 53-A requires actual possession per agreement, and directed refund of earnest money with interest while denying specific performance.

civil appeal_partly_allowed Significant specific performance limitation Article 54 Limitation Act non-joinder of necessary parties

Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v. Union of India

08 Mar 2011 · K. R. Shriram; Neela Gokhale
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Bombay High Court held that reopening of income tax assessment beyond four years is invalid without failure to truly and fully disclose material facts, quashing the reassessment notice issued to Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 147 proviso Reopening of assessment

Sailappan Sodali Muthu v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

23 Feb 2011 · Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court quashed a Section 314 notice issued by the Municipal Corporation for failure to specify the statutory contravention, holding such omission renders the notice without jurisdiction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Section 314 notice jurisdictional requirement contravention specification

Manoj Madhav Limaye & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

18 Feb 2011 · G. S. Kulkarni; Advait M. Sethna
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court upheld the municipal corporation's authority to levy regulatory license fees on sky signs and hoardings under the MMC Act post-GST, but struck down retrospective and arbitrary fee increases lacking proper approval.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant license fee sky signs hoardings Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act

Avinash Bharat Ahire v. The State of Maharashtra

29 Jan 2011 · G. S. Kulkarni; Aarti Sathe
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court set aside the Scrutiny Committee's invalidation of the petitioners' Scheduled Tribe claim, directing issuance of caste validity certificates based on substantial documentary evidence and clarifying that the affinity test is not conclusive.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Scheduled Tribe Certificate Caste Validity Certificate Affinity Test Tribe Claim

M/s. IVY Jewellery Pvt Ltd v. Shri Chandresh Sampat

18 Jan 2011 · R. N. Laddha

The Bombay High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 NI Act, holding that without assignment of liability, the accused cannot be held criminally liable for a dishonoured cheque issued by another.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act dishonoured cheque assignment of debt

Suvarna Netaji Patil v. Smita Ashok Patil

17 Jan 2011 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that a Birth Certificate issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act is admissible evidence and that the appointing authority's acceptance of the birth date therein over conflicting school records cannot be interfered with, allowing the appeal and setting aside the earlier decrees invalidating the appointment.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Birth Certificate admissibility Section 17(2) Registration of Births and Deaths Act Section 35 Indian Evidence Act Date of birth conflict

Dilip Baburao Karape v. The Union of India

14 Jan 2011 · Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal holding that a lost ticket affidavit suffices to prove bona fide passenger status and that injury from falling in a crowded train compartment constitutes an untoward incident entitling the passenger to compensation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant bona fide passenger Railway Claims Tribunal Railways Act 1989 Section 123(c)(2)

Uday Bhanudas Gujar v. Madan Yeshwant Diwan & Ors.

13 Dec 2010 · Amit Borkar

The High Court held that the Divisional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to cancel a sale permission under the Maharashtra Rehabilitation Act after execution of a registered sale deed, restoring the permission and validating the sale.

property petition_allowed Significant Maharashtra Rehabilitation Act, 1999 Section 12 permission appeal jurisdiction Maharashtra Land Revenue Code

M/s. Satra Plaza Premises Co-op. Soc. Ltd. v. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation

22 Nov 2010 · G. S. Kulkarni; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court held that revocation of an Occupancy Certificate without compliance with Section 51 of the MRTP Act and without hearing affected third parties is illegal, quashing the cancellation order and declaring the conditional NOC requirement invalid.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Occupancy Certificate Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act Section 51 MRTP Act No Objection Certificate

Lekha Ali Shaikh v. Chief Executive Officer, Office of the Cantonment Board

21 Nov 2010 · M.S. Sonak; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging demolition of unauthorized construction in a Red Zone, holding that illegal structures cannot be regularized by deemed sanction or subsequent applications.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant unauthorized construction Red Zone Cantonments Act 2006 deemed sanction

Sumitra Shridhar Khane v. State of Maharashtra

26 Oct 2010 · G. S. Kulkarni; Somasekhar Sundaresan
Cites 1 · Cited by 4

The Bombay High Court held that acquisition of land without compensation violates Article 300A, and delay cannot bar the right to compensation, directing the State to complete acquisition and pay compensation.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Article 300A Land Acquisition Act 1894 Compensation Delay and Laches

R. B. Bohora Educational & Welfare Trust v. Vijay Mundaware & Ors.

14 Oct 2010 · Amit Borkar

The High Court held that the Charity Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction under Section 41A by directing a public trust to issue a public apology unrelated to trust property or income, and quashed the impugned order.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 Section 41A Charity Commissioner public trust administration

Vibrant Securities Private Limited v. Income-tax Officer & Ors.

12 Oct 2010 · Dhiraj Singh Thakur; Madhav J. Jamdar
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court set aside the reopening notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2014-15, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to satisfy jurisdictional conditions and the reassessment was based on impermissible change of opinion.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 147 Section 148 Reassessment