High Court of Bombay
4,154 judgments
Sharad Nagnath Bubne v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that employees of aided Ayurvedic Colleges who took voluntary retirement after qualifying service are entitled to pensionary benefits and quashed the State's arbitrary denial of such benefits.
Sandeep Maruti Raskar v. District Magistrate cum District Election Officer and Ors.
The court held that deletion of a name from the municipal voters list must be challenged through statutory remedies against the legislative assembly electoral roll deletion, dismissing the writ petition for failure to exhaust such remedies.
J. K. Industries v. Krishna Sahal & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that under Section 244 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessee is entitled to interest on the refund of interest paid under Section 220(2), including interest on refunded interest for assessment years prior to 1989.
M/s. Shri Tirthankar Co. v. Adyaprasad Hingoo Mishra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court modified the trial court’s decree on adverse possession to reflect actual possession of 38 sq. meters as per a Court Receiver’s report, relying on its appellate powers under Order XLI CPC.
Anand Prabhakar Joshi v. Bank of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioner’s second review petition as barred by law, upheld the disciplinary findings of unauthorized absence, and imposed exemplary costs for abuse of process.
The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State v. M/s Superphone India Ltd
The Bombay High Court held that interlocutory part payment orders under the Bombay Sales Tax Act do not attain finality if unchallenged and can be questioned in appeals against summary rejection orders, affirming the appellate authority's power to modify such orders.
M.B.K. Enterprises & Ors. v. Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd & Ors.
The court upheld eviction of tenants for unlawful subletting beyond permitted limits and unauthorized structural alterations, affirming that sub-lessees cannot further sublet without express lease permission under the Bombay Rent Act.
Raghu Dasma Ghadaga v. Project Officer, Dapchari Dugdha Prakalpa
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition seeking permanency benefits for temporary workers at the Dapchari Milk Project, holding that without sanctioned posts and following closure of the relevant project section, no right to permanency arises.
Modern Mumbai Educational Academy v. Mrs. Mangal Pravin P. Kalbhor
The Bombay High Court upheld the School Tribunal's order setting aside a termination for procedural violations under Rule 36 of MEPS Rules, emphasizing the necessity of fair inquiry and the doctrine of necessity to avoid bias where the President was related to the accused.
Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. M/s. Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that under Section 93-A of the ESI Act, a factory owner is not liable for contribution payments for periods after leasing out the factory, dismissing the ESIC's appeal against M/s. Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Suryakant Tarachand Bhatewara & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of land acquisition awards for the Neera Deodhar Project, directed payment of balance compensation with interest, and ordered initiation of acquisition proceedings for remaining land under the Fair Compensation Act.
Rangrao Mahadu Pethkar v. Sadashiv Maruti Vibhute & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the termination of tenancy and restoration of possession to landlords where the tenant defaulted on rent for three years with proper notices under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, rejecting the tenant’s claim of deemed purchase and non-service of termination notice.
Reliance Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax Mumbai City-VI
The Bombay High Court held that assessment orders passed against non-existent amalgamating companies post-merger are void ab initio and framed a substantial question of law on jurisdiction, permitting additional evidence to determine the Assessing Officer's knowledge of the merger.
Satyawati Sudhir Joshi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that continuous service including temporary appointments followed by confirmation, with condoned breaks, qualifies for pension benefits despite absence of formal de-reservation orders, directing the State to grant pension from 1993.
Seal International Limited v. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
The Bombay High Court held that admitted documents and their contents under Order XII Rule 2-A CPC are deemed proved without further proof, establishing appellant's ownership and directing refund of illegally auctioned goods' sale proceeds.
M/s. Patil Roadlines and Ors. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of reservation and concession provisions for SC/ST and MSE bidders in BPCL's tender, dismissing the petition challenging the same as barred by estoppel and consistent with affirmative action under Article 46.
Tukaram Sadashiv Mane v. The Chairman, The Mumbai Port Trust
The Bombay High Court upheld the fairness of departmental enquiry against a Station Master but substituted his dismissal with compulsory retirement, holding the original punishment disproportionate given mitigating factors.
Clear Media (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment without new tangible material, when the issue was considered in the original order, is invalid as it amounts to impermissible change of opinion.
Survival Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that reopening of income tax assessment beyond four years is impermissible without tangible new material evidencing failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, and set aside the reopening notice and order in absence of such material.
Tahnee Heights CHS Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14, holding that reopening beyond four years requires specific failure to disclose material facts and cannot be based on mere change of opinion.