High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
State Bank of India v. Vineet Agrawal
The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 1990-91, holding that no failure to disclose material facts justified reopening beyond four years.
Lalita Dhanraj Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that limitation for filing an appeal under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act runs from the date of actual or constructive knowledge of the order, and appellate authorities have power to condone delay, quashing dismissal of appeal as barred by limitation.
Sundaram Home Finance Limited v. Rahul Jayvantrao Kaulavkar
The Bombay High Court held that civil courts retain jurisdiction to try suits involving agricultural land exempt from the SARFAESI Act and that such jurisdictional questions cannot be decided at the Order 7 Rule 11 stage.
Kailas Gangaprasad Yadav v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant in a POCSO sexual assault case due to contradictions in evidence, improper recording of the child's statement, and lack of medical corroboration.
The State of Maharashtra v. Mukesh Bhojraj Puraswami & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the acquittal of accused in a murder case where medical evidence indicated death by hanging and prosecution failed to prove homicidal strangulation beyond reasonable doubt.
Altisource Business Solutions India Pvt Ltd v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that interest at 6% per annum on delayed GST refunds is payable from 60 days after the original refund application date, even if the refund is sanctioned only after an appellate order.
State of Maharashtra v. Nakul Trimbak Bhangare & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the acquittal of accused in a rape and robbery case due to inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony, failure to conduct proper identification parade, and lack of corroborative evidence.
Mohammad Arif Asik Ali Raain v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for sexual assault under the POCSO Act but reduced the sentence from five to three years, affirming the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony and the sufficiency of prosecution evidence.
Vishal Mahesh Suple; Manish Bharat Parmerkar; Vinayak Chidambar Dhole v. The State of Maharashtra; Vivek Sitaram Kamtekar
The Bombay High Court quashed a criminal case under IPC Sections 427, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 based on an amicable settlement and the complainant's withdrawal, subject to a monetary condition.
Dr. Gufran Beig v. C.B.I., A.C.B. Pune
The Bombay High Court discharged two accused officials from criminal prosecution for alleged procurement irregularities, relying on departmental exoneration and lack of prima facie evidence to proceed to trial.
Vaijanath Dayanand Kale v. Nerkar Properties LLP
The High Court upheld the jurisdiction of the commercial court over a construction contract dispute, dismissing the writ petition challenging the plaint's return under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC.
Hanmant Nagnath Surwase v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused for murdering his wife based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and failure to provide any plausible explanation.
Ramesh Namdeo Naikwade v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and insufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Vijaykumar Raosaheb Kulkarni v. The Rasta Peth Education Society & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that an employee’s ambiguous resignation letter should be treated as voluntary retirement if pension benefits are involved, and that voluntary retirement can be withdrawn before its effective date even after acceptance.
Shahenaj Amjed Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court altered the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, reducing her sentence to the period already served.
Rashmi Uday Shukla v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court refused to quash an FIR alleging unauthorized disclosure of confidential police intelligence, holding that the investigation must proceed and that the Right to Information Act does not override the Official Secrets Act.
Raju Dayal Shrimali @ Khimji v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of the appellant for murdering his wife by throttling, relying on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence including his confession and surrender.
Tukaram Pandurang Mhaske v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a father-in-law for raping his minor daughter-in-law, affirming that credible sole testimony of a minor victim under the POCSO Act suffices for conviction despite delay and absence of forensic corroboration.
Shaila Vijay Kamble v. The State of Maharashtra
The court analyzed circumstantial evidence and procedural irregularities in a murder and robbery case, emphasizing the necessity of a complete evidentiary chain to uphold conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Nagpur Integrated Township Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai
The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal must prima facie determine whether an appellant is a "promoter" before ordering a pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of RERA, quashing pre-deposit orders passed without such consideration.