High Court of Bombay

3,981 judgments

Year:

Tulshiram T. Patil v. Wellman Hindustan Limited

16 Nov 1999 · Amit Borkar

The Bombay High Court upheld a binding industrial settlement resolving wage and gratuity claims of workers, rejecting allegations of fraud and delay in raising objections.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant industrial settlement unfair labour practices voluntary retirement scheme employment termination

Mahesh Purshottam Maurya v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

12 Nov 1999 · Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal challenging a municipal notice under Section 351 MMC Act, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove the legality of the disputed structure.

property appeal_dismissed Section 351 Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act unauthorized construction burden of proof property tax receipt

Anil Joginder Sachdev v. Balasaheb Hiralal Zad

25 Oct 1999 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Court held that eviction on ground of default in rent was not maintainable due to premature suit filing before expiry of statutory notice period, but upheld eviction for unauthorized permanent construction and injury to premises under the Bombay Rent Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Bombay Rent Act Maharashtra Rent Control Act Section 12(2) Bombay Rent Act default in payment of rent

Vijay Shankar Patil and Others v. UCO Bank

16 Sep 1999 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 2 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that Industrial Tribunals have jurisdiction to award interest on delayed payment of dues under an Award, directing UCO Bank to pay 6% interest on back wages from the date they became due until actual payment.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33-C(2) Interest Act, 1978 Interest on delayed payment

Abhishek Mahesh Garodia v. Maharashtra Housing Area & Development Authority

01 Jul 1999 · A. S. Gadkari; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court dismissed the Trust's petition challenging MHADA's cancellation of land allotment due to delayed payment and interest liability, holding MHADA acted lawfully and the Trust waived objections by its conduct.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant MHADA allotment cancellation of allotment interest on delayed payment Regulation 16 MHADA

M/s. TAA Construction v. The Kalyan Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee

05 Feb 1999 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that time spent bona fide in a forum lacking jurisdiction must be excluded from limitation under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and quashed the order rejecting the application as barred by limitation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration Act 1940 Section 14 Limitation Act 1963 Article 119

Harkisandas Tulsidas Pabari & Ors. v. Alok Nandkishor Acharya & Ors.

03 Dec 1998 · Alok Aradhe, CJ; Sandeep V. Marne, J

The Bombay High Court upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award due to lack of jurisdiction of the arbitrator to recommence proceedings without fresh notice and held that the MoU was not a concluded contract capable of specific performance.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 21 Section 34 Specific performance

Equus Stud Pvt. Ltd v. Dharmil A. Bodani

27 Oct 1998 · G. S. Kulkarni; Somasekhar Sundaresan

The Bombay High Court held that a court cannot grant injunction against a non-party over third-party property outside its territorial jurisdiction, setting aside an interim order restraining the appellant from obstructing access to the plaintiffs' property.

civil appeal_allowed Significant injunction against non-party territorial jurisdiction Court Receiver rights interim injunction

Sudhatai Bhagwandas Sawant & Ors. v. Ramchandra Shivram Gadekar & Ors.

31 Aug 1998 · Sandeep V. Marne

The court upheld the eviction decree based on the bona fide requirement of the deceased plaintiff's daughter, holding that legal heirs must plead and prove their own independent need after the plaintiff's death.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant bonafide requirement eviction decree legal heirs amendment of plaint

TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Amritlal P Shah

07 Apr 1998 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court upheld the arbitral award on coercion and liability but modified the interest rate awarded, rejecting the plea of res judicata due to absence of prior pleading and issue framing.

commercial_arbitration appeal_dismissed Significant res judicata arbitral award coercion interest rate

The TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Amritlal P. Shah

31 Mar 1998 · Amit Borkar, J.

The Bombay High Court set aside the appellate court’s discharge of a surety under Sections 139 and 141 of the Indian Contract Act, holding that mere disposal of hypothecated goods by borrowers does not discharge the surety absent creditor negligence or breach of contractual duty.

civil appeal_allowed Significant surety discharge Section 139 Indian Contract Act Section 141 Indian Contract Act hypothecation agreement

Rajesh Ashok Mankar v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.

25 Mar 1998 · Nitin Jamdar; Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The High Court set aside the disciplinary penalty of reduction to the lowest grade imposed on an employee for erroneous pay fixation, holding the findings perverse and the penalty impermissible, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service.

labor appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary enquiry pay fixation error judicial review perversity

The State of Maharashtra v. Uddhao Pandurang Patil

08 Dec 1997 · M. S. Karnik; N. R. Borkar

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing reconsideration of promotion to the Indian Forest Service due to unjustified delay in cadre review, mitigating the age bar under Regulation 5(3).

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Indian Forest Service cadre review promotion age bar

M/s. Yashmum Engineers Ltd v. Sudhir Jagannath Kukarni

17 Nov 1997 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld the Labour Court's finding of illegal retrenchment and compensation award, dismissing the employer's challenge and denying reinstatement to the workman.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant retrenchment Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 section 2(oo) section 25-F

Vijay R. Pandhare v. M/s. Balsara Hygenic Products Ltd.

12 Nov 1997 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court upheld the dismissal of workers' challenge to a voluntary retirement scheme, holding that tax exemption provisions do not create mandatory employment terms and that voluntary acceptance precludes claims of coercion or misrepresentation.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Voluntary Retirement Scheme Income Tax Act Section 10(10C) Income Tax Rules Rule 2BA unfair labour practice

Subhash Amolakchand Gandhi v. The Superintendent, Mumbai City Survey and Land Records & Ors.

23 Oct 1997 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that mutation of land records based on a voidable transaction by an administrator without prior court permission can be effected absent any suit setting aside the transaction, and directed mutation and subdivision of the petitioner’s land plots.

property petition_allowed Significant mutation voidable transaction Section 307 Indian Succession Act executor and administrator powers

M/s. Hindustan Level Employees Union v. M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited

22 Oct 1997 · MILIND N. JADHAV

The Bombay High Court held that a suspended employee's statutory right to subsistence allowance under Section 10(A) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 cannot be denied solely for failure to mark attendance daily at the factory gate, quashing the Labour Court's award upholding such denial.

labor appeal_allowed Significant subsistence allowance suspension attendance marking Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946

Sanjeev Bhaskar Pathak v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

26 Aug 1997 · Amit Borkar

The High Court upheld the liability of former cooperative bank officers under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, affirming procedural compliance and evidentiary sufficiency in holding them accountable for financial losses caused by misfeasance and breach of trust.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 Section 88 misfeasance breach of trust

Sanjeev Bhaskar Pathak v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

26 Aug 1997 · Amit Borkar, J.
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Bombay High Court upheld the liability of former cooperative bank officers under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act for misfeasance causing financial loss, affirming procedural compliance and the definition of 'officer' for personal accountability.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 Section 88 misfeasance breach of trust

Laxman Daji Varnekar v. Thaku Govinda Shinde

11 Aug 1997 · SANDEEP V. MARNE

The Bombay High Court held that lawful cultivation and unchallenged mutation entries suffice to confer deemed tenancy under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Tenancy Act, setting aside the Revenue Tribunal's contrary order.

property appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Section 4 deemed tenant mutation entries lawful cultivation