High Court of Bombay

4,236 judgments

Year:

The TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Amritlal P. Shah

31 Mar 1998 · Amit Borkar, J.

The Bombay High Court set aside the appellate court’s discharge of a surety under Sections 139 and 141 of the Indian Contract Act, holding that mere disposal of hypothecated goods by borrowers does not discharge the surety absent creditor negligence or breach of contractual duty.

civil appeal_allowed Significant surety discharge Section 139 Indian Contract Act Section 141 Indian Contract Act hypothecation agreement

Rajesh Ashok Mankar v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.

25 Mar 1998 · Nitin Jamdar; Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The High Court set aside the disciplinary penalty of reduction to the lowest grade imposed on an employee for erroneous pay fixation, holding the findings perverse and the penalty impermissible, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service.

labor appeal_allowed Significant disciplinary enquiry pay fixation error judicial review perversity

The State of Maharashtra v. Uddhao Pandurang Patil

08 Dec 1997 · M. S. Karnik; N. R. Borkar

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order directing reconsideration of promotion to the Indian Forest Service due to unjustified delay in cadre review, mitigating the age bar under Regulation 5(3).

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Indian Forest Service cadre review promotion age bar

M/s. Yashmum Engineers Ltd v. Sudhir Jagannath Kukarni

17 Nov 1997 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld the Labour Court's finding of illegal retrenchment and compensation award, dismissing the employer's challenge and denying reinstatement to the workman.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant retrenchment Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 section 2(oo) section 25-F

Vijay R. Pandhare v. M/s. Balsara Hygenic Products Ltd.

12 Nov 1997 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court upheld the dismissal of workers' challenge to a voluntary retirement scheme, holding that tax exemption provisions do not create mandatory employment terms and that voluntary acceptance precludes claims of coercion or misrepresentation.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Voluntary Retirement Scheme Income Tax Act Section 10(10C) Income Tax Rules Rule 2BA unfair labour practice

Subhash Amolakchand Gandhi v. The Superintendent, Mumbai City Survey and Land Records & Ors.

23 Oct 1997 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that mutation of land records based on a voidable transaction by an administrator without prior court permission can be effected absent any suit setting aside the transaction, and directed mutation and subdivision of the petitioner’s land plots.

property petition_allowed Significant mutation voidable transaction Section 307 Indian Succession Act executor and administrator powers

M/s. Hindustan Level Employees Union v. M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited

22 Oct 1997 · MILIND N. JADHAV

The Bombay High Court held that a suspended employee's statutory right to subsistence allowance under Section 10(A) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 cannot be denied solely for failure to mark attendance daily at the factory gate, quashing the Labour Court's award upholding such denial.

labor appeal_allowed Significant subsistence allowance suspension attendance marking Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946

Sanjeev Bhaskar Pathak v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

26 Aug 1997 · Amit Borkar

The High Court upheld the liability of former cooperative bank officers under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, affirming procedural compliance and evidentiary sufficiency in holding them accountable for financial losses caused by misfeasance and breach of trust.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 Section 88 misfeasance breach of trust

Sanjeev Bhaskar Pathak v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

26 Aug 1997 · Amit Borkar, J.
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Bombay High Court upheld the liability of former cooperative bank officers under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act for misfeasance causing financial loss, affirming procedural compliance and the definition of 'officer' for personal accountability.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 Section 88 misfeasance breach of trust

Laxman Daji Varnekar v. Thaku Govinda Shinde

11 Aug 1997 · SANDEEP V. MARNE

The Bombay High Court held that lawful cultivation and unchallenged mutation entries suffice to confer deemed tenancy under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Tenancy Act, setting aside the Revenue Tribunal's contrary order.

property appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Section 4 deemed tenant mutation entries lawful cultivation

Vijay Shivram Pathare v. City Corporation Limited

31 Jul 1997 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that disputes between legal heirs over a deceased decree-holder's estate in a partition suit must be decided by the Civil Court which passed the decree, not by revenue authorities executing the decree.

civil petition_dismissed Significant partition suit preliminary decree Section 54 Code of Civil Procedure Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure

Air India Ltd. v. Hemangi Prabhu and Ors.

23 Jun 1997 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Bombay High Court set aside the CGIT award granting permanency to employees in Air India Ltd., holding that compassionate appointments were barred by a recruitment freeze and that the respondents were employees of subsidiaries, remanding the claim for permanency in subsidiaries for fresh adjudication.

labor appeal_allowed Significant compassionate appointment permanency employer-employee relationship recruitment freeze

Chetan Kodarlal Vyas v. Union of India

27 Feb 1997 · Dipankar Datta, CJ; Madhav J. Jamdar, J

The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL filed for extraneous purposes that led to illegal demolition of a fishermen community crematorium, ordered its reconstruction, and emphasized adherence to due process and bona fide use of PIL jurisdiction.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Public Interest Litigation abuse of process Coastal Regulation Zone Notification natural justice

The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai v. M/s. Mardia Steel Ltd.

05 Oct 1996 · M.S. Sonak; Advait M. Sethna

The Bombay High Court held that revisional powers under Section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act cannot be exercised by officers of coordinate rank and upheld the Tribunal’s rectification of an invalid revisional order.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 Section 57 revisional jurisdiction Section 62 rectification delegation of powers

Sharad Nagnath Bubne v. State of Maharashtra

12 Aug 1996 · Nitin Jamdar; M. M. Sathaye
Cites 1 · Cited by 6

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.

labor petition_allowed Significant voluntary retirement pensionary benefits gratuity Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982

Sandeep Maruti Raskar v. District Magistrate cum District Election Officer and Ors.

20 Dec 1995 · N.J. Jamadar

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.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant electoral roll deletion of name Representation of the People Act, 1950 Registration of Electors Rules, 1960

J. K. Industries v. Krishna Sahal & Ors.

18 Dec 1995 · K. R. Shriram; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

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.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 244 Section 244A Interest on refund

M/s. Shri Tirthankar Co. v. Adyaprasad Hingoo Mishra & Ors.

13 Oct 1995 · Kamal Khata
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

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.

civil appeal_allowed Significant adverse possession possession modification of decree Order XLI Rules 31, 32, 33 CPC

Anand Prabhakar Joshi v. Bank of Maharashtra

14 Sep 1995 · Prithviraj K. Chavan

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.

civil petition_dismissed second review petition Order 47 Rule 9 CPC voluntary retirement unauthorized absence

The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State v. M/s Superphone India Ltd

28 Aug 1995 · M.S. Sonak; Advait M. Sethna

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.

tax appeal_allowed Significant part payment order summary rejection second appeal Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959