High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Satish Ganpatrao Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court acquitted the accused in a bribery case due to failure of prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt and invalid sanction for prosecution.
State Bank of India v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that secured creditors have priority over State sales tax dues under Sections 31-B of the RDB Act and 26-E of the SARFAESI Act, quashing the Sales Tax Department's attachment on mortgaged property.
Welcome Augusten Mascaren v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that a government recruitment ban does not apply to appointments made pursuant to recruitment processes initiated before the ban, extending this principle to non-teaching staff and setting aside the cancellation of approval for such appointment.
Ocean Sparkle Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd
The Bombay High Court directed ONGC to deposit undisputed invoice amounts and restrained invocation of the performance bank guarantee pending arbitration, holding that unliquidated damage claims cannot justify withholding payment after contract completion.
Ajay Bipinchandra Jhaveri & Anr. v. Sanjay Pandurang Kalate & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that an agreement of sale without transfer or agreement to transfer physical possession does not amount to a conveyance under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, and objections to insufficient stamping cannot be raised after the document is admitted in evidence.
Dilip Mohan Desai v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that government resolutions banning appointments of non-teaching staff do not apply retrospectively to invalidate appointments made prior to their issuance and directed inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the government registry with all benefits.
Damu Deoram Bhosale v. Maharashtra State Boar Development Corporation
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions against a private contractor for encroachment and debris dumping on agricultural land, holding that such private disputes must be resolved through civil suits and not writ jurisdiction.
Rajesh Jagan Karote & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld convictions for dowry death and cruelty under sections 304B and 498A IPC, affirming the presumption of dowry death where a woman dies within seven years of marriage under suspicious circumstances linked to dowry harassment.
Mumbai V. Konkan Vibhagiya Mahila Aydyogik Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha Mahasangh Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of Maharashtra's tender conditions for supplementary nutrition supply under ICDS, dismissing the petitioner’s challenge for lack of arbitrariness or malafides.
Essdee Industries v. Esbee Eectrotech LLP
The High Court held that a trial court retains jurisdiction to allow withdrawal of a composite suit involving trademark and design infringement despite a defence under Section 19 of the Designs Act, and the suit need not be transferred to the High Court immediately.
Satpalsingh Surajsingh Bawari v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court allowed recall of prosecution witnesses for cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C to safeguard the accused’s right to a fair trial after he was not produced during evidence and suffered prejudice due to ineffective earlier counsel.
Kartik Kumar Naidu v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
The Bombay High Court granted bail to the applicant in a sexual assault and cheating case, holding that consent obtained under a false pretext of marriage is inapplicable when both parties are married, and that the prolonged consensual relationship negates the allegation of force.
Elizabeth Benjamin Joseph v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that a government-imposed recruitment ban does not apply to appointments where the recruitment process commenced prior to the ban, especially in Minority Educational Institutions protected under Article 30, and quashed the refusal to approve such an appointment.
Kashish Park Reality Private Limited v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that the Competent Authority under MOFA cannot issue corrigenda effecting substantive changes without statutory power or notice, and that registration of deemed conveyance without following statutory procedure is illegal.
Ravindra Hemraj Dhangekar v. Ganesh Madhukar Bidkar & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that only an elected Councillor, not a nominated Councillor, is eligible to be appointed as Leader of the House under section 19-1A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, quashing the appointment of a nominated Councillor to that post.
Vishwanath Sahadu Wakhare & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that land converted to old tenure under the Watan Abolition Act is transferable without permission, and a belated challenge to mutation entries certifying such sale after 42 years is barred by limitation and res judicata.
Vikrant Angolkar v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that offences under the Essential Commodities Act punishable with imprisonment of three years or more are cognizable and non-bailable, rejecting anticipatory bail applications of accused involved in diversion of PDS rice for export.
Ravindra Valmik Konkar v. The Registrar of Trade Unions
The High Court held that the Registrar of Trade Unions cannot adjudicate election disputes and must grant consent for referral to the Industrial Court after a summary inquiry, quashing the refusal of consent in this case.
Michael Gabriel v. Dattaram Kashiram Ambre & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that notice and hearing are required before condoning delay in filing an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., even though no notice is needed before initiating such proceedings.
Akhil Bharat Krishi Go Seva Sangh v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking payment of disputed government grants for fodder camps, holding that serious factual disputes require trial and cannot be resolved under summary writ jurisdiction.