High Court of Bombay

3,981 judgments

Year:

Gammon India Limited v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.

09 Jul 1991 · Alok Aradhe, CJ; Sandeep V. Marne, J

The Bombay High Court upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award on claims relating to electricity charges, price variation, and excavation costs, affirming limited judicial interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Section 37 Arbitral Award

Anwar Liyakat Khan v. Ramesh Dattatraya Dhone

27 Feb 1991 · N. J. Jamadar

The High Court held that a consent decree obtained by fraud can be recalled by the court which passed it, even on application by third parties, and that the bar on suits under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC applies to all, but does not preclude recall applications under Section 151 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed Significant consent decree Order XXIII Rule 3 Order XXIII Rule 3A Section 151 CPC

Genarosa A. Annes and Ors. v. Haji Esmail Haji Essa Supariwala and Ors.

09 Jan 1991 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The High Court upheld eviction of tenant from part of premises after finding tenancy was split by surrender of other portions by joint tenant, rejecting plea of indivisible tenancy and invalid demand notice.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant tenancy partial eviction joint tenants demand notice

Suhas Damodar Sathe v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

07 Feb 1990 · Amit Borkar, J.
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that a development agreement conferring extensive proprietary rights constitutes a conveyance under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, attracting higher stamp duty and penalty.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 Development Agreement Conveyance Stamp Duty

M. Yogeshwar Raj v. Air India Limited

04 Feb 1990 · SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR; MANJUSHA A. DESHPANDE
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable against Air India Limited post-privatization as it ceased to be a 'State' under Article 12, while recognizing the limited scope of writ jurisdiction against private entities performing public functions.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant writ petition Article 226 privatization Air India Limited

Vithoba Bua Sodmise and Ors. v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and Ors.

28 Apr 1989 · Sandeep V. Marne

The court upheld the rejection of a tenancy case that sought to reopen a compromise decree, holding such proceedings barred by res judicata and dismissing the petition challenging the same.

property petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act Section 32G res judicata tenancy case maintainability

Milton Plastics Limited v. Mudit Nagpal & Ors.

01 Apr 1989 · Dhiraj Singh Thakur; Valmiki Sa Menezes
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that reopening of income tax assessment beyond four years without tangible material showing failure to disclose material facts is invalid and quashed the reassessment notice and order for Assessment Year 1997-98.

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

M/s. S V Jadhav v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Sangli

01 Apr 1989 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale

The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment notice and order under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that the Assessing Officer lacked valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment after accepting the assessee's explanation.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 148 Income Tax Act reason to believe reassessment fishing enquiry

Suresh Dnyane Tanpure v. Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation

31 Mar 1989 · G. S. Kulkarni; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court dismissed petitions seeking alternate land allotment under the 1999 Act for land acquired in 1989, holding the Act is not retrospective and the claims are barred by delay and laches.

administrative petition_dismissed Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 Section 16(2)(a) land acquisition alternate land allotment

K. Gupta v. Najma W/o. Ramzanali Rasekhinejad And Ors.

02 Dec 1988 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal challenging eviction from a disputed room held in breach of an interim order, upholding the City Civil Court's direction to restore possession to the Court Receiver.

civil appeal_dismissed interim order possession Court Receiver breach of court order

Nizamuddin Husainsaheb Pirjade v. The State of Maharashtra

01 Dec 1988 · G.S. Kulkarni; Somasekhar Sundaresan
Cites 2 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging land acquisition due to inordinate delay and held that acquisition does not lapse if possession or compensation is taken, reaffirming the discretionary nature of writ relief in stale claims.

property petition_dismissed Significant land acquisition delay and laches Article 226 Section 24(2) of 2013 Act

Sakhubai Baburao Kadam and others v. Sudhakar Sambhaji Kadam and others

24 Nov 1988 · Sandeep V. Marne

The High Court upheld eviction of tenant for default in rent payment, holding that clandestine deposits in Court without landlord's knowledge do not constitute valid payment under the Bombay Rent Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Bombay Rent Act Section 12 default in rent payment eviction suit

Vijay Parbati Sashte v. Commissioner of Police, Pune & Ors.

16 Jun 1988 · A. S. Gadkari; Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale

The High Court quashed a detention order due to an unexplained two-month delay by prison authorities in forwarding the detenue's representation, violating constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5).

criminal appeal_allowed Significant detention order representation against detention delay in forwarding representation Article 22(5) Constitution of India

Umar Ali Shakir Shaikh v. Commissioner of Police, Pune

16 Jun 1988 · A. S. Gadkari; Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale

The Bombay High Court quashed a preventive detention order due to unexplained delay by jail authorities in forwarding the detenue's representation, violating his fundamental rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant preventive detention Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act Article 22(5) Constitution of India representation delay

Union of India v. Shri Dnyaneshwar Mangesh Bagkar

24 Feb 1988 · S.M. Modak

The High Court upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's compensation award, ruling that absence without sufficient cause limits challenge scope and that station diary entries cannot replace substantive evidence on claimant's intoxication.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Order 9 Rule 13 CPC Section 96 CPC ex parte award

Hanumant Baburao Neharkar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

25 Jan 1988 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld the correction of an alternate land allotment order to include all legal heirs, holding that an allotment obtained by misrepresentation is a nullity and can be corrected notwithstanding delay or limitation.

property petition_allowed Significant alternate land allotment land acquisition misrepresentation fraud

Devoo Ambo Patil and Others v. Hiren Venilal Sevak and Others

11 Jan 1988 · Sandeep V. Marne

The High Court held that the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation and not maintainable without declaratory relief challenging termination, setting aside the decree of the first Appellate Court.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Limitation Act, 1963 Specific performance Termination of contract Agreement for Sale

Lalit Ramkrushna Bode v. State of Maharashtra

11 Nov 1987 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court held that a fresh departmental enquiry cannot be ordered merely because the first enquiry exonerated the employee, emphasizing the need for reasoned grounds and adherence to principles of natural justice.

administrative petition_allowed Significant departmental enquiry fresh enquiry principles of natural justice Divisional Enquiry Manual clause 7.3

Arvind Balaji Walvekar v. State of Maharashtra

30 Oct 1987 · Sandeep V. Marne

The High Court set aside the Revenue Authorities’ regrant order of disputed land, holding that the Civil Court’s decree declaring the land non-Watan land is binding unless overturned by appellate court, and directed expeditious disposal of the pending appeal determining the land’s status.

property appeal_allowed Significant Watan land Maharashtra Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 Civil Court jurisdiction

Dattu Shankar Dhumal v. The Director, M/s. Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd.

03 Sep 1987 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioners' claim for enhanced wages under a collective settlement, holding they were employees of a non-member sister concern and failed to prove functional integrality with the member company.

labor petition_dismissed Significant Memorandum of Settlement Customs House Agents Association Industrial Tribunal employment relationship