High Court of Bombay

3,981 judgments

Year:

Pravin Girish Chamaria & Nishit Bechar Patel v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

02 Feb 2008 · M. S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that disputes over apportionment of land acquisition compensation must be referred by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Civil Court, quashing the order directing disbursal to individual partners.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 Land Acquisition Officer Compensation apportionment Partnership firm property

Lovely Jogindersingh Sethi v. Nayeem Riyaz Khan & Ors.

30 Jan 2008 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld eviction of tenant on grounds of bonafide requirement, default in rent, and nuisance, affirming applicability of Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and rejecting the tenant's challenge.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section 16(1)(g) Section 16(1)(i) bonafide requirement

Essar Shipping Limited v. Union of India

14 Dec 2007 · B. P. Colabawalla; Somasekhar Sundaresan
Cites 0 · Cited by 6

The Bombay High Court quashed a DGFT show cause notice as barred by res judicata, holding that a clarificatory policy circular operates prospectively and settled export incentive claims cannot be reopened retrospectively.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Foreign Trade Policy Served from India Scheme Policy Circular res judicata

Hersheys India Pvt. Ltd. v. Kanti Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

06 Dec 2007 · Somasekhar Sundaresan

The Bombay High Court partially set aside an arbitral award directing Rs. 75 lakhs compensation for implied contract renewal, holding such compensation unsupported by evidence and severable from the valid portions of the award.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitral award Section 34 Arbitration Act Contract extension Partial setting aside

Metal Box India Ltd. v. M/s. S.F. Engineer

04 Dec 2007 · Sandeep V. Marne · 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3189

A public limited company losing rent control protection under Maharashtra Rent Control Act due to paid-up share capital exceeding Rs. 1 crore as on 31 March 2000 cannot regain such protection by subsequent reduction of share capital.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section 3(1)(b) paid-up share capital rent control protection

Deepali Dinesh Naik v. Pramila Dilip Deshmukh

20 Nov 2007 · Amit Borkar

The Bombay High Court held that disputes solely concerning grant of higher pay scale without dismissal, reduction in rank, or supersession do not fall within the School Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, dismissing the writ petition.

labor petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act Section 9 jurisdiction pay scale dispute reduction in rank

Hiraman Nivrutti Tupe v. Sou. Vijaymala Vinayak Bazare

03 Oct 2007 · Sandeep V. Marne

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order condoning delay to set aside an ex-parte decree, holding the explanation false and the discretion exercised perversely.

civil appeal_allowed Significant condonation of delay ex-parte decree Order IX Rule 13 CPC bona fide explanation

Maruti Krishana Naik and Others v. M/s. Advani Oerlikon Ltd. and Anr.

21 Aug 2007 · Sandeep V. Marne

The court held that an employer can justify termination without prior enquiry by leading all relevant evidence before the Labour Court, including on grounds not specified in the termination order, and upheld the termination of employees for misconduct including participation in illegal strike and assault.

labor petition_dismissed Significant termination without enquiry unfair labour practice Labour Court jurisdiction employer's right to justify termination

Rohit s/o Pramod Chavan & Ors. v. Pramod Jayawant Chavan & Ors.

28 Jun 2007 · M.S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court held that a suit cannot be summarily dismissed for abuse of process without prima facie consideration of substantive averments and restored the suit for fresh adjudication.

civil appeal_allowed Significant abuse of process of law inherent jurisdiction Section 151 CPC Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Film & Television Producers Guild of India v. State of Maharashtra

20 Jun 2007 · K.R. Shriram; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court upheld entertainment duty on sponsorship amounts for an award function including performances but set aside the penalty for lack of proper authority and application of mind.

tax appeal_allowed Significant entertainment duty Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act award function sponsorship amount

Karan Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra

08 Jun 2007 · G. S. Kulkarni; Advait M. Sethna
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court upheld the State Government’s rejection of subsidy to an existing grain-based distillery unit under the 2007 policy, holding that only new units with capital investment incurred after the policy date are eligible.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant grain-based distillery subsidy Government Resolution 8 June 2007 capital expenditure new distillery eligibility

Aeon Creations Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

07 May 2007 · G. S. Kulkarni; Advait M. Sethna
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that purchasers of premises on 'as is where is' basis are liable to pay theft charges crystallized against previous owners under the Electricity Act and applicable regulations, dismissing the petitioners' challenge to the additional conditions of the Amnesty Scheme.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Electricity arrears Theft charges Amnesty Scheme Maharashtra Electricity Supply Code

Gloria Lois Crasto v. Piloo Fali Bomanjee & Ors.

01 Apr 2007 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court set aside the eviction decree for arrears of rent and non-user due to invalid service of notice and absence of proper pleading on non-user under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Rent Control Act Section 15(2) valid notice arrears of rent

Prime Securities Ltd. v. Mrs. Arti Anil Shah

17 Mar 2007 · Kamal Khata
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Court held that a secured creditor with a decree and possession prior to insolvency adjudication is entitled to possession of the property notwithstanding insolvency proceedings, rejecting the Official Assignee’s claim.

property appeal_allowed Significant secured creditor insolvency possession equitable mortgage

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. The B.E.S.T. Workers Union

14 Mar 2007 · Sandeep V. Marne

The High Court held that B-Grade officers drawing basic pay exceeding Rs.6,500/- are not "employees" under Section 3(13) of the BIR Act, thus the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the unfair labour practice complaint filed on their behalf.

labor appeal_allowed Significant employee definition Section 3(13) BIR Act basic pay pay scale

Sudhir Madhavrao Kudale & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

12 Feb 2007 · G. S. Kulkarni; Somasekhar Sundaresan
Cites 0 · Cited by 11

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging demolition of structures on land lawfully acquired by NHAI, holding no illegality or entitlement to compensation was established.

administrative petition_dismissed National Highways Act, 1956 land acquisition encroachment demolition

Kiran P. Pawar v. Bata India Ltd.

02 Feb 2007 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that Bata's salesmen qualify as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, upheld their reinstatement claims but modified relief to lump-sum compensation due to delay and age, dismissing Bata's challenge to Labour Court jurisdiction.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant workman definition Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Sales Promotion Employees Act 1976 MRTU & PULP Act

Shree Champalal Kothari Trust & Ors. v. Rajhans Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

02 Feb 2007 · Amit Borkar

The court held that a trial court must strictly adhere to the limited scope of an appellate remand and cannot permit withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh dispute introducing new issues beyond formal defects under Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC.

civil petition_allowed Significant Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC remand order formal defect withdrawal of suit

Jayashree Electron Pvt. Ltd. v. Prashant Ranu Gaware

31 Jan 2007 · Sandeep V. Marne

The High Court held that it can entertain writ petitions challenging preliminary Part-I Awards of Labour Court on fairness and perversity grounds, and set aside the Labour Court's finding of perversity in enquiry officer's findings where supported by some evidence.

labor appeal_allowed Significant domestic enquiry preliminary issue perversity principles of natural justice

Mirza Himayat Beig @ Umar v. The State of Maharashtra

22 Dec 2006 · Revati Mohite Dere; Gauri Godse
Cites 2 · Cited by 5

The Bombay High Court granted bail to an accused under UAPA after 13 years of custody, emphasizing the constitutional right to liberty and speedy trial despite serious terrorism charges.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail UAPA long incarceration speedy trial