High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Girish Uttamrao Kohok v. Ratan Hiraji Deore
The Bombay High Court allowed the second appeal and granted specific performance of a sale agreement despite initial refusal on technical grounds, holding that non-sanction of final layout is not a bar and credible oral evidence suffices to prove payment and readiness to perform.
Faiz Ahmed Mohammed Ali Khot v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that a suspended private school employee is entitled to subsistence allowance under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, and directed payment of arrears with interest due to management's failure to conduct enquiry or pay allowance.
M/s. Zeal Real Estate Limited v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court quashed the compulsory acquisition order under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act for failure to determine fair market value and absence of a finding of tax evasion intent, holding that such acquisition requires strict compliance with statutory and natural justice principles.
Nurul Shamsul Haq Shah v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court acquitted appellants of murder charges due to unreliable dying declaration, inconsistent eyewitnesses, and inconclusive forensic evidence, emphasizing strict scrutiny of dying declarations under Section 32 Evidence Act.
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR and investigation against Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. on finding the complaint malafide, lacking affidavit support, and an abuse of process of law, emphasizing the necessity of judicial mind and affidavit under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Maruti Navnath Sonawane v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court allowed the appellant's criminal appeal and discharged him from charges under the MCOC Act due to lack of prima facie evidence and failure to meet statutory conditions for invoking the Act.
Joseph Anthony v. Rukmini Krishna Turbhekar
The Bombay High Court set aside eviction decrees for arrears of rent, holding that timely filing of an application for deposit within 90 days and deposit on the next working day after a holiday satisfies statutory requirements under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Sicily Varghese Kadamthottu v. Ramanlal Jayshankar Trivedi
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal, holding that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) after framing issues and that unregistered agreements under MOFA are admissible evidence for enforcement of contractual rights.
Jayesh Tanna v. Radha Arakkal & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld that a registered agreement for sale cannot be orally modified and the promoter must refund the amount with interest for failure to deliver possession by the agreed date under Section 18 of RERA.
Ved Prakash Ahuja v. Roma Prakash Ahuja
The High Court allowed the writ petition directing the Trial Court to summon the Income Tax Department to provide the mandatory Section 65-B certificate for electronic Income Tax records, holding that failure to do so was a non-application of mind.
The Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Bhagyashree Pravin Kulkarni
The Bombay High Court set aside the Industrial Court's additional interim order directing payment of wages and increments to a daily wage employee, holding that such relief cannot be granted during pendency of the complaint when an earlier status quo order is in force.
Rajmachi Rural Aid and Development Programme v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court directed the Collector to decide whether disputed land vested as private forest under the Maharashtra Private Forest Act, holding that procedural defects in notices do not automatically invalidate vesting and that factual disputes must be resolved by the competent authority.
Trimbak Joma Thakur and others v. Principal Secretary Urban Development Department and others
The Bombay High Court directed CIDCO to deposit enhanced land acquisition compensation with interest as per a final court decree, rejecting claims of financial inability and pendency of review petitions, holding that selective payment violates constitutional equality and writ jurisdiction is maintainable to enforce such rights.
Ganesh Anmappa Talwar v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder based on reliable child witness testimony corroborated by neighbors and medical evidence, rejecting claims of delay and tutoring.
Iqbal Ahmed Kallan Khan v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court acquitted appellants of murder charges due to irreconcilable inconsistencies in multiple dying declarations, giving precedence to the earliest medical officer's statement indicating suicide.
Nauman Suleman Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Tanvi Amardas Bhalla
The Bombay High Court quashed a sexual offence FIR under IPC and POCSO Act upon settlement and mutual marriage undertaking by the now-major victim and accused.
Sharvari Vishwas Magdum v. The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti
The Bombay High Court held that denial of admission to Class-VI based on a hyper-technical reading of Navodaya Vidyalaya Scheme was unjustified as it violated the statutory right to education under the RTE Act, directing admission of the petitioners.
Sandeep Omprakash Singh & Ajay Keshav Singh v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court acquitted accused persons of kidnapping and ransom charges under section 364A IPC due to failure of prosecution to prove essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt amid material contradictions.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M/s. Indrayani Holding and Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Reference Court's enhanced compensation for land acquired from Village Savroli, affirming that market value must consider all relevant factors including potential commercial and industrial use.
Bhavani Gems Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2014-15, holding that mere change of opinion without failure to disclose material facts does not justify reopening assessment beyond four years.