High Court of Bombay

3,981 judgments

Year:

The Court Receiver v. Mumbai Labour Union

22 Dec 2006 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that dissolution of a partnership firm by notice and appointment of Court Receiver for sale of assets effects closure of business without requiring separate permission under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, setting aside the Industrial Court's order for payment of wages and reopening of the factory.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Partnership dissolution Section 43 Indian Partnership Act Section 25-O Industrial Disputes Act Court Receiver

Kumar Dashrath Kamble v. Bombay Hospital

01 Dec 2006 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that denial of permanency to an HIV positive employee was discriminatory and ordered grant of permanency from 2006 with arrears limited by statutory limitation.

labor appeal_allowed Significant permanency HIV discrimination unfair labour practice Industrial Disputes Act

MARS Enterprises v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

21 Nov 2006 · A.S. Chandurkar; Manish Pitale; Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court larger Bench, following the Supreme Court in Harish Lamba, held that water tax and water benefit tax are compulsory property taxes leviable irrespective of actual water consumption, and water charges are payable in lieu of these taxes.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant water tax water benefit tax water charges property tax

Ramdas Yashwant Mandlik v. B.Y. Pagare

21 Nov 2006 · G. S. Kulkarni; Aarti Sathe

An expert director without voting rights under cooperative society bye-laws cannot be held liable under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act for damages without active participation in management.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 Section 88 liability expert director cooperative society management

Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra

28 Aug 2006 · Amit Borkar, J.
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that only the Registering Officer who registered an instrument can exercise powers under Section 33A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, and actions beyond the six-year limitation under Section 53A are barred, quashing a belated order demanding deficit stamp duty.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 Section 33A Section 53A Registering Officer

Sameerkumar Prakash Awasare v. The State of Maharashtra

31 Jul 2006 · Revati Mohite Dere; Manjusha Deshpande

The Bombay High Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges due to failure of the prosecution to prove circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence murder extra-judicial confession last seen

Paramount Limited v. Ion Exchange (India) Limited

05 Jun 2006 · Nitin Jamdar; Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award due to lack of jurisdiction of the sole arbitrator for failure to give due notice and held that a party failing to notify the other of critical applications cannot invoke section 42 to oust jurisdiction.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 42 jurisdiction Due notice Sole arbitrator jurisdiction

Dinesh Singh v. The Central Bureau of Investigation

29 May 2006 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court dismissed the revision challenging the rejection of discharge of a former Custodian of Enemy Property accused of conspiracy and corruption in withdrawing statutory notices and facilitating alienation of enemy property.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Enemy Property Act, 1968 Custodian of Enemy Property Section 227 CrPC discharge application

Hindalco Industries Limited v. Union of India

16 May 2006 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 1 · Cited by 14

The Bombay High Court held that delay in filing an application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act should be condoned liberally to advance substantial justice and that the Commissioner’s wide powers under Section 264 are not restricted by the nature of an order under Section 143(1).

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 264 Income Tax Act condonation of delay Fringe Benefit Tax Section 143(1) intimation

Indo Count Industries Ltd. v. Shankar Mahadev Takmare & Ors.

15 Apr 2006 · Sandeep V. Marne

The High Court held that an agreement fixing retirement age at 58 years is valid under MIR Act and set aside interim orders extending employment till 60 years.

labor appeal_allowed Significant retirement age Model Standing Order 25A Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 agreement on retirement age

Louis Lobo v. Mohamed Yusuf Moosa & Ors.

12 Apr 2006 · Sandeep V. Marne

The High Court upheld eviction on unauthorized subletting grounds where the tenant admitted tenancy and continuous exclusive occupation by third parties was established, rejecting the claim that tenancy was created for a club.

civil petition_dismissed Significant unauthorized subletting tenancy Bombay Rent Act residential club tenancy

Ghanshyam Malhotra & Ors. v. Vithalnagar Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd.

28 Mar 2006 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Court held that an Administrator's lease termination notice issued beyond his tenure is invalid, lease termination is a policy decision reserved for the elected Managing Committee, and an unauthorized assignment deed is illegal.

property appeal_allowed Significant Cooperative Housing Society Lease termination Administrator powers Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960

Central Railway-Mumbai Division v. A-1 Laundry Services (JV)

02 Mar 2006 · Sandeep V. Marne

The High Court set aside the arbitral award's reduction of lost linen recovery rate below contractual terms, upheld penalty caps, and affirmed fixed cost compensation during COVID-19, emphasizing strict adherence to contract terms by arbitral tribunals.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Contract interpretation Recovery of lost linen

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. G. R. Engineering Private Limited

01 Mar 2006 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court partially set aside an arbitral award denying liquidated damages for lack of reasoning while upholding other claims relating to civil works, insurance, service tax, and customs duty in a commercial arbitration between HPCL and GRE.

commercial_arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Liquidated damages Civil Works compliance

Reliance Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Satyananda Mohanty

28 Feb 2006 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that a separation request via E-Portal constitutes resignation but without valid acceptance by the employer, reinstatement is not warranted and compensation is appropriate.

labor appeal_allowed Significant voluntary resignation separation request E-Portal acceptance of resignation

M/s. Chalet Hotels Ltd. v. Bhikan Laxman Deokar

18 Feb 2006 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court affirmed employer-employee relationship between a hotel and a driver engaged through contractors, held his termination illegal, and awarded lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages.

labor other Significant employer-employee relationship termination reinstatement backwages

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Prakash Vasant Hardikar

29 Jan 2006 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court held that the Respondent's dismissal for selling already sold tickets was justified but rendered ineffective due to reinstatement, denying backwages for the dismissal period while directing release of retirement benefits with interest.

labor petition_partly_allowed Significant domestic enquiry dismissal backwages reinstatement

Jayashree Anil Satheye v. Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd.

01 Jan 2006 · Dhiraj Singh Thakur; Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging pay fixation under the Revised Pay Rules, holding that bunching increments apply only when pay fixation results in pay bunching at the minimum pay band, which was not the case for the petitioner.

service_law petition_dismissed bunching increments Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 pay fixation 6th Central Pay Commission

Atos India Private Limited v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

01 Jan 2006 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that providing manpower services for software maintenance and bug fixing without transfer of intellectual property rights is a contract of service and not sale liable to VAT under the MVAT Act.

tax appeal_allowed Significant contract of service sale of software maintenance and bug fixing intellectual property rights

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State v. M/s. Wockhardt Ltd.

31 Dec 2005 · M.S. Sonak; Advait M. Sethna
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proof to classify the product as a plant growth promoter, upholding the Tribunal's finding that it is a fertiliser taxable at a lower rate.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Sales Tax Product Classification Fertiliser Plant Growth Promoter