High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

Mukesh Incense Enterprises Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India

23 Jun 2020 · M. S. Sonak; Advait M. Sethna

The Bombay High Court set aside orders rejecting a GST refund application for non-consideration of relevant precedents and directed fresh adjudication consistent with the limitation period counted from the original application date.

tax appeal_allowed Significant CGST Act Section 54(3) Rule 90(3) refund application

Padmavir Bhagwanrao Thorat v. Pune Municipal Corporation

15 Jun 2020 · Dipankar Datta; M. S. Karnik

The Bombay High Court quashed the selection of Ayurvedic Medical Officers where the Corporation improperly allowed post-provisional submission of experience certificates and adopted an evaluation procedure inconsistent with statutory rules.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Ayurvedic Medical Officer recruitment preferential qualification Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act 1949 Staff Selection Committee

Paperbox Company of India v. Goldensource International Pvt. Ltd.

12 Jun 2020 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

The Bombay High Court upheld the arbitral award directing refund of security deposits, holding that "vacant possession" means premises free of occupants but not stripped to a bare shell, and affirmed the tribunal's jurisdiction despite pending possession proceedings.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant vacant possession security deposit refund arbitral award arbitration jurisdiction

Gulf Oil Lubricants India Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax Appeal-V

26 May 2020 · Nitin Jamdar; Abhay Ahuja

The Bombay High Court held that the limitation period for GST appeals is extended until the Appellate Tribunal is constituted, and taxpayers filing declarations are protected from recovery proceedings, disposing of writ petitions challenging non-constitution of the Tribunal.

tax petition_dismissed Significant Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal Limitation period Non-constitution of tribunal

Sushila Devidas Ghorpade v. Ganesh Anandrao Jagdale

26 May 2020 · N.J. Jamadar
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court quashed a Lok Adalat award obtained by fraud and procedural irregularities, restoring the suit for fresh adjudication and affirming the maintainability of writ petitions challenging Lok Adalat awards on limited grounds.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Lok Adalat fraud compromise decree writ petition

Manjuben Mukesh Tandel v. Commissioner of Excise

04 May 2020 · N.J. Jamadar
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that cancellation of excise licences without clear notice of all alleged breaches and proposed action violates statutory mandate and natural justice, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with proper hearing.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant excise licence cancellation show cause notice natural justice opportunity of hearing

Deluxe Caterers Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Narayani Associates

09 Apr 2020 · G. S. Kulkarni

The Bombay High Court held that invoking the force majeure clause did not extend the term of a commercial conducting agreement, which expired by efflux of time, and upheld dismissal of interim relief sought by the appellant.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant force majeure clause contract extension termination rights suspension of obligations

Sushil Lohiya v. Central Bureau of Investigation

06 Apr 2020 · Prasanna B. Varale; S. M. Modak

The Bombay High Court held that extension of judicial custody without physical or virtual production of the accused is irregular but not illegal per se, and dismissed the habeas corpus petition challenging such extension.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant judicial custody virtual production Section 167(2) proviso (b) CrPC habeas corpus

Cutis Biotech v. Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd.

27 Mar 2020 · Nitin Jamdar; C. V. Bhadang
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court dismissed Cutis Biotech's appeal seeking interim injunction against Serum Institute's use of the trademark 'Covishield', holding no prima facie case of passing off was made out and public interest favored Serum Institute.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant passing off trademark Covishield prior user

Tanaji Dattu Padwal v. Director of Enforcement & Anr.

19 Mar 2020 · Madhav J. Jamdar
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court granted bail to the accused under PMLA on the ground of long incarceration applying Section 436A CrPC despite stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, upholding the right to speedy trial under Article 21.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Money Laundering Act Section 436A CrPC bail long incarceration

Sangita Sandip Jadhav & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

19 Mar 2020 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court allowed refund of stamp duty paid on a failed Agreement for Sale where possession was not handed over and the refund application was timely under the Maharashtra Stamp Act.

civil petition_allowed Significant stamp duty refund Maharashtra Stamp Act 1958 Section 47 Section 48

Rochem India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

18 Mar 2020 · Nitin Jamdar; Abhay Ahuja
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that appeals to the unconstituted GST Appellate Tribunal can be filed within an extended limitation period, and impugned orders shall not be enforced until after this period, thereby protecting taxpayers without prejudicing substantive rights.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal GSTAT constitution Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 appeal limitation extension

Jagshi Jethabhai Chheda & Anr. v. District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Mumbai & Ors.

17 Mar 2020 · B. P. Colabawalla; Somasekhar Sundaresan

The Bombay High Court set aside the registration of a deemed conveyance for failure to comply with the mandatory summons and hearing requirements under Section 11(5) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 11(5) MOFA 1963 deemed conveyance unilateral instrument of conveyance summons to show cause

Amol Jagdish Baviskar; Zakir Anwar Shaikh; Prashant Prabhakar Tokekar v. The Minister, The Higher and Technical Education Department, Maharashtra State

16 Mar 2020 · Dipankar Datta CJ; G. S. Kulkarni J.

The Bombay High Court held that the State Government's retrospective exclusion of ATMA and similar exams from MBA/MMS admission eligibility for 2020-21 was arbitrary and directed admissions based on those exams for that year.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Admission criteria MBA/MMS courses ATMA examination Maharashtra State CET

Sandeep Pandurang Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

12 Mar 2020 · Dipankar Datta CJ; G. S. Kulkarni J.
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court held that exclusion of villages from a Municipal Corporation without mandatory consultation with the Corporation is illegal, quashing the State Government's notification altering KDMC boundaries.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act 1949 Section 3(3) consultation Municipal Corporation

The State of Maharashtra v. The Superintendent of Police, Pune Rural

11 Mar 2020 · S.V. Gangapurwala; Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The High Court held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right transferable among legal heirs and dismissed the claim for substitution after refusal and delay, setting aside the Tribunal's order allowing such substitution.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant compassionate appointment substitution of legal heirs Government Resolution 2015 waiting list

Kashi Institute of Pharmacy v. Union of India & Ors.

05 Mar 2020 · Arun Mishra; Vineet Saran; M. R. Shah

The Pharmacy Act, 1948 being a special law prevails over the AICTE Act, 1987 in regulating pharmacy education, granting exclusive jurisdiction to the Pharmacy Council of India over pharmacy courses and professional registration.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Pharmacy Act, 1948 AICTE Act, 1987 Pharmacy Council of India All India Council for Technical Education

Mars Art Studio v. Shirdi Industries Limited

03 Mar 2020 · Abhay Ahuja

The High Court set aside the attachment warrant as the NCLT-approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is binding and extinguishes claims beyond the approved amount.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Resolution plan National Company Law Tribunal Execution proceedings

Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co.Ltd v. The Insurance Ombudsman

27 Feb 2020 · G. S. Kulkarni

The High Court held that the Insurance Ombudsman is a quasi-judicial tribunal amenable to writ jurisdiction and upheld repudiation of a life insurance claim due to material non-disclosure by the insured.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Insurance Ombudsman Rules 2017 Article 227 Constitution Non-disclosure Life Insurance Policy

K. Raheja Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

27 Feb 2020 · Nitin Jamdar; Abhay Ahuja

The Bombay High Court held that a written communication quantifying tax dues before 30 June 2019 renders a declarant eligible under the SVLDR Scheme and quashed the rejection of the petitioner’s declaration and related show cause notice for non-communication and procedural lapses.

tax appeal_allowed Significant SVLDR Scheme Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution quantification of tax dues eligibility under SVLDR