High Court of Bombay

5,061 judgments

Year:

Doli Ledha Ravidas v. The State of Maharashtra

14 Jan 2017 · Manish Pitale; Shreeram V. Shirsat
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld the murder conviction based on a reliable dying declaration and corroborative evidence, dismissing the appellant's challenge to the sufficiency and credibility of the prosecution case.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dying declaration Section 302 IPC Section 27 Indian Evidence Act recovery of weapon

Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation v. Municipal Labour Union

12 Jan 2017 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court set aside the Industrial Court's award directing absorption of contract workers into municipal service, holding no employer-employee relationship existed between the Municipal Corporation and the contractor's workers under the six-factor test from Balwant Rai Saluja.

labor appeal_allowed Significant employer-employee relationship contract workers absorption municipal corporation

Union of India v. Emami Agrotech Ltd

15 Dec 2016 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award rejecting Central Railway's invocation of a Fall Clause to reduce bio-diesel prices, holding that differing freight cost arrangements rendered the prices incomparable.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Fall Clause price comparison

Kryshnajay Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Kapil M. Mahtani

09 Dec 2016 · S.C. Gupte; Abhay Ahuja

The Bombay High Court held that an unconditional bank guarantee must be honored by the bank upon proper invocation irrespective of disputes between the underlying parties, dismissing the appellant's challenge to restrain payment.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant bank guarantee unconditional guarantee invocation of bank guarantee temporary injunction

Tushar Laxman Bhakare @ Chawhan v. The Collector & Ors.

27 Oct 2016 · M.S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court held that possession of additional land by NHAI without formal acquisition and compensation violates Article 300-A, directing payment of compensation and completion of acquisition proceedings despite delay.

property appeal_allowed Significant compulsory acquisition Article 300-A National Highways Act, 1956 compensation

Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

27 Oct 2016 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and eviction orders on government-owned land, rejecting tribal ownership claims lacking valid allotment and mutation, and affirmed the authority of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under Section 3C(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Slum Rehabilitation Scheme Slum Rehabilitation Area Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 Section 3C(1)

Sanjay Thakkar v. Bhojja Shantu Shetty & Ors.

26 Oct 2016 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Bombay High Court upheld the striking out of defendant's defence under Order 39 Rule 11 CPC for wilful breach of court undertaking to maintain status quo by creating third-party rights.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order 39 Rule 11 CPC breach of undertaking striking out defence status quo

Tata Memorial Centre v. Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union

26 Oct 2016 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that Tata Memorial Centre is an autonomous body controlled by the Central Government, making the Central Government the appropriate government under labor laws, and set aside Industrial Court orders holding otherwise.

labor appeal_allowed Significant appropriate government Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 autonomous body Central Government control

The State of Maharashtra v. Shri Machindra Hariman Thakare

17 Oct 2016 · Sandeep V. Marne

The High Court upheld the Labour and Industrial Courts' orders reinstating daily wage labourers of the Forest Department terminated without due process, rejecting the State's claim of Employment Guarantee Scheme engagement and lack of jurisdiction.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Labour Court jurisdiction Employment Guarantee Scheme Section 25F Industrial Disputes Act Reinstatement

Orient Club Building and Association v. Mrs. Nilofer Abijit Gupta

13 Oct 2016 · Rajesh S. Patil

The Bombay High Court held that a delayed post-trial amendment seeking to add legal heirs and new tenancy claims is impermissible, and inter-se disputes among heirs regarding tenancy succession fall outside Rent Court jurisdiction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant amendment of pleadings tenancy rights Maharashtra Rent Control Act Section 7(15)(d)

Shailesh Haribhau Jagtap v. Rahul Suresh Khetre

09 Oct 2016 · N. J. Jamadar

The Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a police officer for wrongful confinement and extortion for lack of mandatory sanction under Section 197(2) CrPC, holding that alleged acts in discharge of official duty require prior sanction to prosecute.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 197 CrPC sanction for prosecution police officer protection wrongful confinement

M/s. Depe Global Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Mather and Platt (India) Ltd.

06 Oct 2016 · Sandeep V. Marne

A company excluded from rent control protection under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 on the date of commencement cannot regain such protection by subsequently reducing its paid up share capital.

property petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section 3(1)(b) paid up share capital rent control protection

Bina Saxena v. Union of India

05 Oct 2016 · Nitin Jamdar, ACJ; Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Cites 0 · Cited by 21

The Bombay High Court upheld the CAT’s dismissal of a CGHS pensioner’s claim for medical reimbursement beyond CGHS rates, affirming that emergency admission without Referral Memo does not entitle reimbursement over CGHS rates.

administrative petition_dismissed CGHS reimbursement emergency admission Referral Memo medical expenses

M/s. MEP RGSL Toll Bridge Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd.

21 Sep 2016 · Dipankar Datta CJ; G. S. Kulkarni J.
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that arbitration cannot be compelled by writ in absence of a valid arbitration agreement and mutual consent, and the State Government's arbitration policy is directory, not mandating arbitration in expired contracts.

civil petition_dismissed Significant arbitration agreement Institutional Arbitration Policy Article 226 mutual consent

Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. v. Champion Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd.

21 Sep 2016 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

The Bombay High Court upheld the non-arbitrability of eviction disputes under a leave and license agreement and dismissed Sahara's delayed Section 11 application for appointment of arbitrator as time barred.

commercial_arbitration appeal_dismissed Significant arbitration agreement Section 8 Arbitration Act Section 11 Arbitration Act eviction suit

Larsen & Tourbo Limited v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd

16 Sep 2016 · Alok Aradhe, CJ; Sandeep V. Marne, J
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld the setting aside of several arbitral claims for being contrary to contract and unsupported by evidence, affirming limited judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and the finality of the Engineer-in-Charge's decisions.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Section 37 Engineer-in-Charge

Sonali Mallikarjun Bedgnur v. The Secretary, Dnyansampada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

06 Sep 2016 · G.S. Kulkarni

The High Court quashed the Education Officer’s illegal cancellation of approval and the consequent oral termination of a teacher, ordering reinstatement with back wages for violation of natural justice and procedural fairness.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Education Officer Approval cancellation Natural justice Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act

Sangli Aluminium Extrusions Pvt Ltd v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd

01 Sep 2016 · B. P. Colabawalla; Somasekhar Sundaresan
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that a purchaser under SARFAESI Act without notice of sales tax dues is not liable for such dues and MIDC cannot demand increased Differential Premium beyond rates prevailing at transfer application.

civil petition_allowed Significant SARFAESI Act Sales Tax Dues Differential Premium Transfer of Industrial Property

Macrotech Developers Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

31 Aug 2016 · Ujjal Bhuyan; Milind N. Jadhav
Cites 0 · Cited by 18

The Bombay High Court held that prosecution unrelated to tax arrear does not bar settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, quashing the impugned circular clarification and allowing the petitioner’s declaration.

tax petition_allowed Significant Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 Section 9(a)(ii) tax arrear prosecution under Income Tax Act

M/s. Chandiwala Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra

29 Aug 2016 · R. M. Joshi
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that Development Agreements are eligible for refund of stamp duty under Section 47(c)(5) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, and remanded the matter for inquiry and fresh decision by the Collector.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 Section 47 Section 48 Development Agreement