High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Bank of India v. Magnifico Minerals Private Limited & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Bank of India's application for condonation of a 579-day delay in filing a commercial appeal, emphasizing that public sector banks must exercise due diligence and that delay condonation in commercial matters is an exception, not a rule.
Haribhau Narayan Chikane v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to failure to take possession and pay compensation, quashing the award and releasing the petitioner’s land from acquisition.
Bharatiya Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Krishna Harinarayan Bajaj
The Bombay High Court held that a co-operative society's negligence in maintaining common property entitles a member to recover certified repair costs with interest, but damages for loss to movable property require proper proof.
The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Thane v. Ajit India Private Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act on maintainability grounds, holding that classification issues involving rate of duty fall within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under section 35L.
Vijay Laxman Bhawe and Ors. v. P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Trial Court's order restoring a suit dismissed for non-prosecution, holding that an assignee under an agreement for sale is a proper party entitled to continue the suit and that the delay in filing restoration application was rightly condoned.
Sanjaykumar Shivmangal Bharati v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court substituted convictions under Section 304(II) IPC with Section 325 IPC where death was caused by vagal inhibition without knowledge of fatal consequences, reducing sentences accordingly.
United Kingdom, AB157UE v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR and proceedings against the petitioner for non-cognizable offences registered without Magistrate's prior permission, holding such registration and investigation illegal under Section 155(2) CrPC.
Shivaji University Teachers Association v. Chief Election Officer, Maharashtra State Election Commission
The Bombay High Court upheld the State Election Commission's authority to requisition teachers from a state-aided college affiliated to a public university for panchayat election duties under Article 243-K and the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, dismissing the petition challenging such requisition.
Rattan India Power Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging service tax demand on irrigation restoration charges, holding that the petitioner must avail the statutory appeal remedy as the issue involves disputed facts and law unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.
Purshotam Vishandas Raheja v. State of Maharashtra
The Court held that failure to take acquisition steps within six months of a purchase notice under Section 127 MRTP Act causes reservation to lapse, and such notice cannot be withdrawn, quashing acquisition proceedings initiated after the lapse.
M/s. Bombay Pharmaceuticals Works Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court directed the developer to execute and register a permanent alternate accommodation agreement with the petitioner before granting further permissions, restraining creation of third party rights, enforcing compliance with redevelopment conditions under Article 226.
Gorakhnath Shankar Nakhwa & Ors. v. The Municipal Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Municipal Corporation's stop work orders and requirement of NOC from Mazagaon Dock Shipbuilders Limited as a Defence Establishment, validating security-based restrictions on construction under relevant laws and constitutional provisions.
Vikram Delite Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court upheld the Defence authorities' refusal to grant NOC for construction near a Naval establishment, affirming the Planning Authority's duty to consider security concerns under statutory provisions and deferring to Defence expertise on national security matters.
J P Parekh & son v. Naseem Qureshi
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act directing deposit of admitted architectural fees by Respondents pending arbitration, emphasizing the Court's wide discretion to secure amounts in dispute before commencement of arbitral proceedings.
Maruti Ganu Supnekar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others
The Bombay High Court held that entitlement to land allotment under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 arises only upon application under Section 16(1), and acceptance of full compensation without such application forfeits the right to allotment and notice under Section 16(2)(a).
Forest Realty v. Taksha Spaces Pvt Ltd. & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that filing a vakalatnama and return of summons marked 'unclaimed' constitute valid service, negating the need for re-service under Rule 84 of its Original Side Rules.
ICICI Bank Limited v. Budhadeo Mukharji
The Bombay High Court held that absence of a registered mortgage deed precluded the petitioner bank from claiming secured creditor status under SARFAESI Act, allowing the civil suit for injunction by a bona fide purchaser to proceed.
The State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Constructions
The Bombay High Court upheld the majority arbitral award granting compensation for delay in a construction contract, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Stoughton Street Tech Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. Godlike Esports Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s interim application enforcing a determinable Collaboration Agreement in an e-sports dispute, holding no concluded contract was proved and negative covenants unenforceable against non-parties.
Shri Sadanand Raghunath Gharat v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court upheld dismissal of a government employee for obtaining appointment by fraudulently claiming Scheduled Tribe status, holding that fraudulent appointments are void and disciplinary action can be taken even after decades.