High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

Rashmi Uday Shukla v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

25 Aug 2020 · Nitin Jamdar; Sarang V. Kotwal

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.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant quashing of FIR Official Secrets Act Right to Information Act confidential information

Raju Dayal Shrimali @ Khimji v. State of Maharashtra

19 Aug 2020 · Prasanna B. Varale; Prakash D. Naik

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.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC extra-judicial confession throttling

Tukaram Pandurang Mhaske v. The State of Maharashtra

19 Aug 2020 · S.S. Shinde; M.S. Karnik

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.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act sexual offence minor ossification test

Shaila Vijay Kamble v. The State of Maharashtra

19 Aug 2020 · Prasanna B. Varale; Prakash D. Naik

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.

criminal other Significant circumstantial evidence murder attempt to murder robbery

Nagpur Integrated Township Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai

18 Aug 2020 · S.C. GUPTE

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.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Section 43(5) pre-deposit promoter

Nagpur Integrated Township Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai

18 Aug 2020 · S.C. GUPTE

The Bombay High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal must prima facie determine promoter status before ordering pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, quashing pre-deposit orders passed without such consideration.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Section 43(5) pre-deposit promoter

Shrikant Laxman Surwase v. The State of Maharashtra

13 Aug 2020 · S.S. Shinde; M.S. Karnik
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges due to failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a circumstantial evidence case involving postmortem burns and a locked latrine door.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence murder Section 302 IPC postmortem burns

Milind Hanumant Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra

13 Aug 2020 · S.S. Shinde; M.S. Karnik

The Bombay High Court acquitted the appellant of murder under Section 302 IPC due to hostile testimony of the injured eye witness and insufficient circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant hostile witness circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC murder

Shashikumar Ramswami Harijan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

12 Aug 2020 · Prasanna B. Varale; Prakash D. Naik

The Bombay High Court acquitted appellants of murder charges due to unreliable eye witness evidence and procedural defects in identification parade, granting them benefit of doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant benefit of doubt eye witness testimony identification parade test identification parade

Suraj Harisingh Bahadur v. The State of Maharashtra

12 Aug 2020 · Prasanna B. Varale; Prakash D. Naik

The Bombay High Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges due to failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt on circumstantial evidence and inadmissibility of the alleged confession.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC extra-judicial confession Section 26 Evidence Act

Shikha Lodha v. Suketu Shah & State of Maharashtra

06 Aug 2020 · Rajesh S. Patil

The Bombay High Court held that the Family Court at Mumbai lacks jurisdiction to entertain a divorce petition when the parties last resided together outside India, quashing the Family Court's order and allowing the wife's writ petition challenging jurisdiction.

family appeal_allowed Significant Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 19 jurisdiction divorce petition last residence

Lahu Harischandra Dhopat v. The State of Maharashtra

05 Aug 2020 · Prasanna B. Varale; Prakash D. Naik

The Bombay High Court upheld the life conviction of the appellant for murder based on reliable child witness testimony corroborated by circumstantial and forensic evidence, affirming that absence of motive does not preclude conviction.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant child witness Section 302 IPC murder reliability of evidence

Mohd. Ishtiyak Ismile Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra

05 Aug 2020 · Prasanna B. Varale; Prakash D. Naik

The Bombay High Court upheld the life conviction of a father for repeatedly raping his minor daughter, affirming that credible sole testimony of the victim and corroborative medical evidence suffice to sustain conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant rape Section 376(2)(f) IPC sexual assault minor daughter

Shobha Jahangir Shinde @ Bhosale v. The State of Maharashtra

29 Jul 2020 · S.S. Shinde; M.S. Karnik

The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants, holding that the dying declarations were unreliable and insufficient to sustain conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC reliability of evidence contradictions in testimony

Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd. v. Nima Developers Private Limited & Anr.

28 Jul 2020 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court dismissed Atul Projects’ appeal against the arbitral tribunal’s refusal of interim relief in a complex land development dispute, emphasizing readiness to perform, precision of agreement, and the impact of a No Development Zone classification, while underscoring the necessity of full disclosure of material documents.

commercial_arbitration appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 17 interim relief No Development Zone Specific performance

Sanket Satish Naik v. The State of Maharashtra

23 Jul 2020 · S.S. Shinde; S.P. Tavade

The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 304, 336, 323, and 504 IPC following an amicable settlement and withdrawal of allegations by the complainant, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC inherent powers of High Court Section 304 IPC

Kotak Securities Limited v. Gajanan Ramdas Rajguru

20 Jul 2020 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld the arbitral award allowing a client to retain profits earned from trades executed using erroneously credited margin due to the broker's system glitch, rejecting the broker's claim to those profits under the Indian Contract Act.

commercial_arbitration petition_dismissed Significant margin money technical glitch arbitral award unjust enrichment

SBI General Insurance Company Limited v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation

14 Jul 2020 · Madhav J. Jamdar
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court quashed an ESIC order passed without supplying interim reports relied upon to the petitioner, holding that violation of natural justice justified entertaining the writ petition despite alternative statutory remedies.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant principles of natural justice quasi-judicial order interim reports Employee State Insurance Act, 1948

Showik Indrajit Chakraborty v. The State of Maharashtra

28 Jun 2020 · Revati Mohite Dere; Manjusha Deshpande

The Bombay High Court quashed indefinite Look Out Circulars issued by the CBI against petitioners for lack of recorded reasons and periodic review, holding such continuation violates their fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Look Out Circular Fundamental Right to Travel Article 21 CBI Investigation

Vodafone Idea Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(2) (2), Mumbai

26 Jun 2020 · R. D. Dhanuka; Madhav J. Jamdar

The Bombay High Court directed refund of Rs. 833 crores to Vodafone Idea Ltd. for assessment year 2014-15, holding that Section 241A does not apply to that year and the admitted refund cannot be withheld against unadjudicated demands.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 241A Section 245 Section 154