High Court of Bombay

3,981 judgments

Year:

Balasaheb Sonba Chavan v. Dilip Baburao Rajput

06 Nov 2025 · G. S. Kulkarni; Aarti Sathe

The Bombay High Court allowed the appellant's appeal directing transfer of the Vendor's license to him, quashing the suspension order based on resolved partnership disputes.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Vendor's License Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Partnership Dispute License Transfer

Ramesh Tulshiram Bhutekar & Ors. v. The Asiatic Society of Mumbai & Ors.

06 Nov 2025 · Revati Mohite Dere; Sandesh D. Patil

The Bombay High Court held that the Charity Commissioner under Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act has no jurisdiction to interfere with public trust elections once declared, quashing the impugned order directing election procedures.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 Section 41A Charity Commissioner public trust election

Abhay Manohar Paranjape & Ors. v. Shivnagari Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors.

06 Nov 2025 · Amit Borkar

The Bombay High Court held that lawful complaints and litigation by cooperative society members cannot justify expulsion under Section 35 without clear, reasoned findings of detrimental conduct, restoring the petitioners' membership.

civil petition_allowed Significant Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act Section 35 expulsion from cooperative society lawful litigation

M/s. Otarmal Kantilal & Co. v. Ullhas Shankar Naik & Anr.

04 Nov 2025 · Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court held that a garnishee must pay over all amounts credited to the judgment debtor's account during the currency of a warrant of attachment, not just the balance on the warrant date.

civil appeal_allowed Significant warrant of attachment garnishee decree-holder summary suit

Ramprakash @ Popat Govind Manohar v. State of Maharashtra

04 Nov 2025 · M. M. Sathaye

The High Court acquitted the appellant of abetment to suicide and cruelty charges due to insufficient evidence of instigation, proximate cause, and specific cruelty under sections 306 and 498-A IPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant abetment to suicide section 306 IPC section 498-A IPC cruelty

Kafeel Ahmed Mohd Ayub v. The State of Maharashtra

04 Nov 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court granted bail to an accused in a serious terror case due to prolonged trial delay and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21, overriding statutory bail restrictions.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail prolonged incarceration speedy trial Article 21

Nihal Ahmed Abdulla v. Malegaon Municipal Corporation

04 Nov 2025 · G. S. Kulkarni; Aarti Sathe

The Bombay High Court directed the Malegaon Municipal Corporation to promptly demolish illegal constructions on the petitioners' land, emphasizing strict enforcement of building laws and rejecting excuses of resource constraints or ownership disputes.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant illegal construction unauthorized construction municipal corporation duty demolition

Satish Murlidhar Inamdar & Ors. v. Amogh Sawant & Ors.

04 Nov 2025 · Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court held that third-party purchasers through a terminated developer cannot enforce rights against the Society or new developer, affirming that the Society is not a promoter under MOFA in such circumstances.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 promoter liability third-party purchasers development agreement termination

Om Swayambhu Siddhivinayak v. Harischandra Dinkar Gaikwad

04 Nov 2025 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

The Bombay High Court held that disputes arising from a Development Agreement and related Supplemental Agreement are arbitrable under an expansive arbitration clause, and mere allegations of fraud do not oust arbitration jurisdiction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 8 application arbitrability of fraud Development Agreement

Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

03 Nov 2025 · B. P. Colabawalla; Amit S. Jamsandekar
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that a reassessment notice under section 148 cannot be issued to a non-existent entity and quashed the notice and assessment order issued against a company converted into an LLP.

tax petition_allowed Significant section 148 Income Tax Act non-existent entity reassessment notice conversion of company to LLP

Rakesh S. Kathotia v. Milton Global Ltd.

03 Nov 2025 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

The Bombay High Court set aside an arbitral award for perversity and inherent contradictions, holding that contractual rights cannot be treated as obligations to deny relief despite breaches in a joint venture dispute.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Joint Venture Agreement Contractual rights vs obligations

Manish Ashok Badkas v. Novartis India Ltd.

03 Nov 2025 · M.S. Sonak; Advait M. Sethna

The Bombay High Court holds that Maharashtra Labour Courts have territorial jurisdiction over unfair labour practice complaints where the employer’s decision is made within Maharashtra, overruling the earlier view that the employee’s situs alone governs jurisdiction.

labour appeal_allowed Significant territorial jurisdiction unfair labour practices Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Act cause of action

Asiya Salim Shaikh & Ors. v. Romell Housing LLP & Ors.

03 Nov 2025 · Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court granted interim reliefs to plaintiffs claiming adverse possession over disputed property, finding serious doubts about defendants' title documents and possession claims.

civil appeal_allowed Significant adverse possession interim injunction possession dispute forgery of documents

State of Maharashtra v. Kalyan Sangam Infratech Ltd.

03 Nov 2025 · Somasekhar Sundaresan

The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award holding the State liable for material breach affecting toll collections, validating terminal payments and interest awarded to the concessionaire under the Concession Agreement.

commercial_arbitration petition_dismissed Significant Concession Agreement Material Breach Material Adverse Effect Terminal Payments

M3nergy SDN. BHD. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

03 Nov 2025 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of a Joint Executing Agreement initialled but not signed, affirming the existence of an arbitration agreement and dismissing the challenge to the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

commercial petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 review Joint Executing Agreement arbitration agreement existence

Miss Pritam Dinkar Adhav v. Union of India & Ors.

03 Nov 2025 · Revati Mohite Dere; Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that the Central Government cannot substitute a nominated member of a Cantonment Board mid-tenure without following the removal procedure under Section 34 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, and quashed the impugned substitution notification.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Cantonments Act, 2006 Section 13 Section 34 nomination

Maki Homi Chibber Nee Maki Modi v. State of Maharashtra

03 Nov 2025 · N. J. Jamadar

The High Court quashed the ex parte order granting Unilateral Deemed Conveyance under MOFA, 1963 due to violation of natural justice and remanded the matter for fresh hearing with proper notice.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Unilateral Deemed Conveyance Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 Competent Authority Natural Justice

Shiv Kumar I. Agarwal v. Mehzabeen & Ors.

03 Nov 2025 · M.M. Sathaye

The court held that absence of a subsisting license as on 01.02.1973 precludes protection under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act, and eviction suits against trespassers are not barred by limitation, allowing the writ petition and restoring the ex-parte eviction decree.

civil appeal_allowed Significant leave and license agreement Section 15A Bombay Rent Act subsisting license deemed tenant

Mrs. Anjanabai Rajaram Gore v. Mrs. Manjulabai Baban Gaikwad

03 Nov 2025 · Gauri Godse, J.

The court held that in a suit for possession based on title, limitation under Article 65 starts only when defendant's possession becomes adverse, and mere mutation or long possession without hostile animus does not bar the suit.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant adverse possession limitation period Article 65 Limitation Act mutation entry

Fakira Rambhau Shewale and Ors. v. Vasant Narayan Rane and Ors.

03 Nov 2025 · Gauri Godse

The court held that a written agreement consistent with an oral contract is not a novation, time for payment is not the essence if vendor fails to clear encumbrances, and specific performance binds only the share of the coparcener who executed the agreement in ancestral joint family property.

civil appeal_allowed Significant specific performance oral agreement written contract time essence of contract