High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Jayashree Chandrakant Dhavre v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court directed payment of the final reward to the legal heir of a deceased informer, holding that belated doubts about identity cannot justify arbitrary withholding of rewards already partially disbursed.
Satara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court set aside the order cancelling recruitment of 385 cooperative bank employees, holding that cancellation without hearing appointees and without concrete proof of irregularity violates natural justice and is unsustainable after six years of service.
B.V. Jewels v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the statutory interest demand and sealing of factory premises, holding the petitioner failed to comply fully with the Supreme Court's order and the interest liability arises automatically under the Customs Act.
Usha Kakade v. Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd.
Appeals against orders in enforcement proceedings under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are not maintainable under the Commercial Courts Act or CPC, and the maintainability issue is conclusively settled by res judicata.
Hiraman Yashwant Kathe & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that disputes over compensation fixed by agreement under Section 33(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act cannot be referred under Section 34, and the 2013 Act applies only to compensation determined unilaterally by the Collector.
Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court directed Maharashtra to comply with Supreme Court mandates and statutory obligations under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, ensuring effective child protection through proper staffing, functioning, and monitoring of all related authorities and institutions.
Suryakant Kisan Pawar v. Deputy Collector, Mumbai and Presiding Officer Parents and Senior Citizens Subsistence Tribunal, Mumbai City; Kusum Kisan Pawar
The Bombay High Court upheld the eviction of a son unlawfully occupying his senior citizen mother's tenement under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, affirming the Tribunal's protective jurisdiction.
Girish Sahakari Griharachana Sanstha Maryadit v. Mallikarjun Madhavrao Navande
The court held that refusal of membership in a co-operative society must be based on statutory or bye-law grounds and cannot be justified by alleged unauthorized construction, breach of land use conditions, or contractual clauses absent express statutory disqualification.
Yedage Vishnu Baba v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that the Minister exceeded jurisdiction by reviewing his own order without new evidence or error apparent on record, setting aside the review order and upholding the original restoration of licenses.
City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. v. Government of India
The Bombay High Court allowed CIDCO to remove mangroves for a public bypass bridge project, subject to strict compliance with environmental conditions and an undertaking, despite an interim freeze on mangrove destruction.
Chandralok (B) CHS Ltd. v. Manish Rajnikant Jaitha & Ors.
The High Court upheld the trial court's order allowing impleadment of legal heirs after death of a plaintiff, condoning delay in substitution application under Order 22 CPC and Limitation Act to ensure adjudication on merits.
Dhananjay Shivram Mapare and Ors. v. Vilas Eknath Kapre and Ors.
The High Court allowed the revision to reject a vexatious suit filed to challenge a final partition decree, holding that no real cause of action existed and the plaint was liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Nishant Karsan Bhagat v. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.
The Court upheld CIDCO's authority to allot lands prior to publication of the NMMC's Draft Development Plan and dismissed petitions challenging such allotments and State Government directives protecting them.
Vitthalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court remanded the issue of EMI deduction for determining sugarcane revenue sharing price for 2016-2017 to the statutory Board for fresh consideration in light of subsequent policy developments.
Wadhwa Group Housing Private Ltd. v. Mr. Vijay Choksi & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that all promoters registered under a real estate project are jointly liable to refund amounts with interest under RERA, regardless of which promoter received payment, dismissing the appeal of a promoter denying liability.
The Deputy Director and Ors. v. Vijaya Balbhim Mali and Ors.
The Bombay High Court set aside the Industrial Court's order granting permanency to daily wage social forestry workers, holding that mere long service without proper appointment does not confer permanency under constitutional and statutory law.
Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking v. Kishor Gulab Salve
The Bombay High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order reinstating a disabled employee dismissed for unauthorized absence, holding that dismissal was victimization violating disability protection laws and directing partial backwages and continuity of service.
Sandeep Gautam Kamble v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that government orders imposing recruitment bans cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate appointments made prior to such orders and directed approval of the petitioner’s appointment with consequential benefits.
Sadanand Belvalkar v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that disputes regarding refusal of one-time settlement benefits fall within the Co-operative Court's jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and set aside the appellate court's order dismissing the plaint as not maintainable.
Estella Fernandes v. Swarna Highrise Constructions
Minority tenants cannot stall redevelopment by refusing agreements or claiming ownership rights beyond tenancy entitlements under DCPR 2034; redevelopment may proceed with majority consent and statutory compliance.