High Court of Bombay

4,236 judgments

Year:

Suresh Dnyane Tanpure v. Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation

31 Mar 1989 · G. S. Kulkarni; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court dismissed petitions seeking alternate land allotment under the 1999 Act for land acquired in 1989, holding the Act is not retrospective and the claims are barred by delay and laches.

administrative petition_dismissed Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 Section 16(2)(a) land acquisition alternate land allotment

K. Gupta v. Najma W/o. Ramzanali Rasekhinejad And Ors.

02 Dec 1988 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal challenging eviction from a disputed room held in breach of an interim order, upholding the City Civil Court's direction to restore possession to the Court Receiver.

civil appeal_dismissed interim order possession Court Receiver breach of court order

Nizamuddin Husainsaheb Pirjade v. The State of Maharashtra

01 Dec 1988 · G.S. Kulkarni; Somasekhar Sundaresan
Cites 2 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging land acquisition due to inordinate delay and held that acquisition does not lapse if possession or compensation is taken, reaffirming the discretionary nature of writ relief in stale claims.

property petition_dismissed Significant land acquisition delay and laches Article 226 Section 24(2) of 2013 Act

Sakhubai Baburao Kadam and others v. Sudhakar Sambhaji Kadam and others

24 Nov 1988 · Sandeep V. Marne

The High Court upheld eviction of tenant for default in rent payment, holding that clandestine deposits in Court without landlord's knowledge do not constitute valid payment under the Bombay Rent Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Bombay Rent Act Section 12 default in rent payment eviction suit

Vijay Parbati Sashte v. Commissioner of Police, Pune & Ors.

16 Jun 1988 · A. S. Gadkari; Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale

The High Court quashed a detention order due to an unexplained two-month delay by prison authorities in forwarding the detenue's representation, violating constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5).

criminal appeal_allowed Significant detention order representation against detention delay in forwarding representation Article 22(5) Constitution of India

Umar Ali Shakir Shaikh v. Commissioner of Police, Pune

16 Jun 1988 · A. S. Gadkari; Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale

The Bombay High Court quashed a preventive detention order due to unexplained delay by jail authorities in forwarding the detenue's representation, violating his fundamental rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant preventive detention Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act Article 22(5) Constitution of India representation delay

Union of India v. Shri Dnyaneshwar Mangesh Bagkar

24 Feb 1988 · S.M. Modak

The High Court upheld the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's compensation award, ruling that absence without sufficient cause limits challenge scope and that station diary entries cannot replace substantive evidence on claimant's intoxication.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Order 9 Rule 13 CPC Section 96 CPC ex parte award

Hanumant Baburao Neharkar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

25 Jan 1988 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld the correction of an alternate land allotment order to include all legal heirs, holding that an allotment obtained by misrepresentation is a nullity and can be corrected notwithstanding delay or limitation.

property petition_allowed Significant alternate land allotment land acquisition misrepresentation fraud

Devoo Ambo Patil and Others v. Hiren Venilal Sevak and Others

11 Jan 1988 · Sandeep V. Marne

The High Court held that the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation and not maintainable without declaratory relief challenging termination, setting aside the decree of the first Appellate Court.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Limitation Act, 1963 Specific performance Termination of contract Agreement for Sale

Lalit Ramkrushna Bode v. State of Maharashtra

11 Nov 1987 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court held that a fresh departmental enquiry cannot be ordered merely because the first enquiry exonerated the employee, emphasizing the need for reasoned grounds and adherence to principles of natural justice.

administrative petition_allowed Significant departmental enquiry fresh enquiry principles of natural justice Divisional Enquiry Manual clause 7.3

Arvind Balaji Walvekar v. State of Maharashtra

30 Oct 1987 · Sandeep V. Marne

The High Court set aside the Revenue Authorities’ regrant order of disputed land, holding that the Civil Court’s decree declaring the land non-Watan land is binding unless overturned by appellate court, and directed expeditious disposal of the pending appeal determining the land’s status.

property appeal_allowed Significant Watan land Maharashtra Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 Civil Court jurisdiction

Dattu Shankar Dhumal v. The Director, M/s. Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd.

03 Sep 1987 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioners' claim for enhanced wages under a collective settlement, holding they were employees of a non-member sister concern and failed to prove functional integrality with the member company.

labor petition_dismissed Significant Memorandum of Settlement Customs House Agents Association Industrial Tribunal employment relationship

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