High Court of Bombay

3,981 judgments

Year:

Dnyaneshwar Lingappa Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra

24 Aug 1987 · M.S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain · 2025:BHC-AS:312-DB

The Bombay High Court held that land requisition under the Bombay Land Requisition Act is temporary and cannot exceed 24 years, and that acquisition under Section 41(1) of the MHADA Act requires a final notification, quashing continued requisition beyond the statutory period and directing restoration or lawful acquisition within one year.

property appeal_allowed Significant Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 Section 41(1) MHADA Act Land requisition

General Manager, BEST Undertaking v. U.B. Mokashi and Ors.

23 Apr 1987 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld the entitlement of promotee clerks holding graduation to additional increments under BCR-19, rejecting the petitioner's claim that the benefit is restricted to direct recruits, and held the claim not barred by limitation except for arrears beyond three years.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant additional increments promotion direct recruits BCR-19

UTO Nederland B.V. and Anr. v. Tilaknagar Industries Ltd.

23 Feb 1987 · Alok Aradhe, CJ; Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court dismissed UTO's appeal for interim injunction against Tilaknagar, holding that reversion of trademark ownership under Section 31 of the Transfer of Property Act is not automatic and that passing off requires established local goodwill, allowing both parties to use the marks pending trial.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant temporary injunction passing off trademark ownership Section 31 Transfer of Property Act

Jitendra Pandurang Chaudhari & Ors. v. Moreshwar Dinkar More & Ors.

20 Dec 1986 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld a temporary injunction restraining appellants from alienating disputed joint family property pending partition suit, finding a prima facie case and preserving status quo.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant temporary injunction joint family property partition suit prima facie case

Jitendra Pandurang Chaudhari & Ors. v. Moreshwar Dinkar More & Ors.

20 Dec 1986 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld a temporary injunction restraining appellants from alienating disputed joint family property pending partition suit, finding a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favor of plaintiffs.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant temporary injunction partition suit joint family property self-acquired property

Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Kolhapur v. Dilip Shankarrao Patil

01 Nov 1986 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is not a statutory corporation exempted under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, thereby allowing eviction proceedings under the Rent Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section 3(1)(b) Corporation established by or under Central or State Act Co-operative Society

The Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, City-II, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

09 Jul 1986 · Alok Aradhe, CJ; Sandeep V. Marne, J.

The Bombay High Court held that for deduction under Section 32AB, profits must be computed as per audited accounts under the Companies Act without adjusting additional sugarcane price paid post-account finalization, allowing the appellant's appeal.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 32AB Income Tax Act Schedule VI Companies Act additional sugarcane price profit computation

Laxman Pralhad Ganaji Dayme and Ors. v. Vinayak Mahadeo Pradhan and Ors.

22 Apr 1986 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court upheld eviction of a tenant for unauthorized permanent construction and damage to premises without landlord's written consent under the Bombay Rent Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant eviction permanent construction Bombay Rent Act written permission

Sadanand Mishra v. Union of India

16 Apr 1986 · Nitin Jamdar; Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld removal orders against ex-RPF constables for misconduct during suspension, rejecting claims of non-service and delay in appeal as barred by limitation.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings natural justice Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 suspension

Vikas Education Society v. The Grampanchayat Chopadi

04 Nov 1985 · G. S. Kulkarni; Advait M. Sethna

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the demolition of a laboratory building, holding that disputed factual issues of possession and ownership are not amenable to writ jurisdiction and that the demolition pursuant to a Gram Sabha resolution was lawful in the interest of public safety.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant writ jurisdiction Article 226 demolition possession

Sanghmitra R. Sandansing v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

08 May 1985 · Nitin Jamdar; M. M. Sathaye
Cites 2 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court upheld the Municipal Corporation's decision denying promotion to the petitioner as Law Officer based on her disciplinary record, affirming that promotion decisions to sensitive posts require consideration of entire service records and are subject to limited judicial review.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant promotion Law Officer Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Departmental Promotion Committee

District Satara v. The State of Maharashtra

16 Jan 1985 · R.D. Dhanuka; M.M. Sathaye

The High Court dismissed writ petitions seeking enhanced compensation under the Fair Compensation Act for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with an award made prior to 2014, holding that the earlier Act governs such cases and the petitioner lacks locus amid pending title disputes.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Section 30 reference enhanced compensation

Praman Infrastructure Private Limited v. The State of Maharashtra

29 Nov 1984 · AMIT BORKAR, J.
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Bombay High Court held that only facts expressly stated or clearly incorporated in a sale deed or its annexures are relevant for stamp duty valuation, dismissing the petition challenging additional stamp duty demand.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant stamp duty Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) annexure incorporation

Babasaheb Haji Abdul Mullani v. Kolhapur Municipal Corporation

26 Apr 1984 · G. S. Kulkarni; R. N. Laddha
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking alternate land allotment after a 37-year delay, holding that delay and laches bar reopening concluded land acquisition proceedings.

civil petition_dismissed Significant land acquisition alternate land allotment compensation delay and laches

Ajit Bhagwan Sawant v. M/s. Parveen Industries Pvt. Ltd.

29 Mar 1984 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that a workman is not entitled to legal representation in a domestic inquiry solely because the Inquiry Officer is legally trained, affirming that defence representation must comply with statutory and standing order provisions restricting it to fellow workmen or union office-bearers.

labor petition_dismissed Significant domestic inquiry legal representation Inquiry Officer Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules

The Lokmanya Pan Bazar Association Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra

31 Oct 1983 · Amit Borkar, J.
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court upheld the deemed conveyance in favor of a cooperative society of flat purchasers under MOFA, rejecting the promoter's contractual and procedural objections.

property petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act deemed conveyance Special Patron Members Urban Land Ceiling Act exemption

Tivoli Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

20 Oct 1983 · Alok Aradhe, CJ; Sandeep V. Marne, J
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that municipal rateable value is a rational but not binding yardstick for determining annual value under Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, and notional interest on security deposits cannot be included in annual value computation.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant annual value municipal rateable value Income Tax Act 1961 Section 22

M/s. Wrangle Investment Limited v. M/s. Mahendra Builders

05 Oct 1983 · Rajesh S. Patil
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld the amendment allowing substitution of the plaintiff from a deceased sole proprietor to the partnership firm in an eviction suit, holding that correction of misdescription is permissible despite abatement and limitation objections.

civil petition_dismissed Significant amendment of plaint misdescription of plaintiff Order 1 Rule 10 CPC partnership firm dissolution

Gorakh Rambhau Chothve v. Vilas Eknath Kadam

14 Jul 1983 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, holding that valid service of notice at tenant's actual residence and monthly quantification of education cess justified eviction for rent arrears exceeding six months.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Bombay Rent Act Section 12(3)(a) demand notice service education cess

Metal Rolling Works Ltd. v. Haresh Kapadia and Ors.

21 Apr 1983 · N.J. Jamadar

The Bombay High Court condoned a 1503-day delay and restored a suit dismissed for want of prosecution due to the ill-health default of the Plaintiff's Advocate, emphasizing that parties should not suffer for their counsel's default when sufficient cause is shown.

civil appeal_allowed Significant condonation of delay dismissal for want of prosecution default of advocate restoration of suit