High Court of Bombay

5,061 judgments

Year:

Shri Prasad Pandurang Tapkir & Another v. The Asst. Director of Town Planning & Ors.

14 Mar 2016 · Nitin Jamdar; Sharmila U. Deshmukh

The Bombay High Court held that statutory premium paid for exemption from FSI under Maharashtra town planning regulations is non-refundable in absence of express provision, dismissing the petitioners' claim for refund and rejecting their discrimination plea under Article 14.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Development Control Regulations Floor Space Index (FSI) premium refund

Ganesh alias Gajaraj Sainath Patil v. The State of Maharashtra

04 Mar 2016 · S.S. Shinde; Abhay Ahuja

The Bombay High Court quashed a preventive detention order under the MPDA Act, holding that a solitary criminal case without habitual commission of offences and lacking a live link to the detention order does not justify classifying a person as dangerous or detaining them without trial.

criminal petition_allowed Significant preventive detention Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act subjective satisfaction in-camera statements

Shri Gavit Gulabsing Suka v. Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha

29 Feb 2016 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

The Bombay High Court upheld the lawful termination of a probationary teacher for admitted inappropriate electronic contact with a student, holding that no formal enquiry was required under the MEPS Act for non-stigmatic termination during probation.

labor petition_dismissed Significant probationary employee termination natural justice Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act

Mubaraz Musafir Khan v. Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation & Ors.

26 Feb 2016 · R.D. Dhanuka; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court upheld the Municipal Corporation's order directing removal of unauthorized structures, ruling that payment of property taxes does not legalize unauthorized constructions and that procedural defects in notice do not invalidate demolition orders.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act Section 260 unauthorized construction property tax

Lavino Kapur Cotton Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of CGST

10 Feb 2016 · Dhiraj Singh Thakur; Valmiki Sa Menezes

The High Court held that interest on delayed refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act accrues from three months after the initial refund application date, not from the date of the refund order.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 11B Central Excise Act Section 11BB Central Excise Act interest on delayed refund refund application

Securitrans India Private Limited v. FIS Payment Solutions and Services Private Limited

09 Feb 2016 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award holding the ATM cash replenishment service provider liable for theft by its employees and rejecting its challenge based on failure of the principal to mitigate losses through reconciliation.

commercial_arbitration petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Mitigation of damages Indian Contract Act, 1872

Vikrant Vinayak Khadpe & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

01 Feb 2016 · S.V. Gangapurwala, ACJ; Sandeep V. Marne, J.

The Court held that mere inclusion in an earlier wait list without meeting cut-off marks after applying horizontal reservations does not confer a right to appointment, dismissing the petition challenging exclusion from the revised wait list.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant reservation horizontal reservation vertical reservation wait list

Vivek Kishan Nandgude v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

28 Jan 2016 · G. S. Kulkarni; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla

The Bombay High Court held that a landowner deprived of land without statutory acquisition procedures is entitled to compensation as promised, rejecting the Municipal Corporation’s denial based on later rules and ordering grant of TDR/FSI or monetary compensation.

property petition_allowed Significant Transferable Development Rights Floor Space Index Land Acquisition Article 300A

Imperial Consultants and Securities Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2)

14 Jan 2016 · G. S. Kulkarni; Advait M. Sethna
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening of the petitioner’s income tax assessment beyond four years, holding that reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without failure to disclose material facts.

tax petition_allowed Significant reopening of assessment Section 147 Income Tax Act Section 148 Income Tax Act failure to disclose material facts

Nijam Mohamad Mulani v. Transport Manager, Pune Mahanagar Pariwahan Mahamandal Ltd.

13 Jan 2016 · G. S. Kulkarni

The Bombay High Court upheld the dismissal of a bus driver for unauthorized absenteeism after a fair domestic enquiry, rejecting claims of unfair labour practice and disproportionate punishment.

labor petition_dismissed domestic enquiry unauthorized absenteeism disciplinary action natural justice

Dilip Gangaram Patil v. Additional/Joint/Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

31 Dec 2015 · M. S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 40

The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening notice under Section 148 for AY 2013-14, holding that reopening is impermissible after revisional proceedings under Section 263 and in absence of failure to disclose material facts.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 notice Section 263 proceedings Reopening assessment

Dr. Pradeep Mehta v. Union of India

30 Nov 2015 · G. S. Kulkarni; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Cites 0 · Cited by 8

The Bombay High Court upheld SEBI's regulatory power to freeze promoter demat accounts for non-compliance with listing obligations, dismissing the petitioner's challenge to the freezing of his accounts despite his claimed lack of control over the company.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant SEBI Act SEBI (LODR) Regulations 2015 freezing of demat accounts promoter liability

Santosh Anant Sabale v. Mathuradas Morarji

25 Nov 2015 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The High Court upheld the eviction decree on unlawful subletting grounds, holding that the tenant failed to rebut the landlord's prima facie proof of exclusive possession by a third party.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant unlawful subletting burden of proof exclusive possession tenant and landlord

Shashikiran Janardhan Shetty v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

24 Nov 2015 · Dhiraj Singh Thakur; Kamal Khata
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment beyond four years requires tangible material of non-disclosure by the assessee, and transactions of a separate legal entity cannot justify reopening the assessee’s assessment.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 notice Reopening of assessment Reason to believe

District Sindhudurg v. Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank

17 Nov 2015 · Nitin Jamdar; M. M. Sathaye

The Bombay High Court held that employees who resigned retain their accrued statutory right to encash privilege leave, and refusal to pay such encashment without statutory authority is arbitrary and unlawful.

labor petition_allowed Significant privilege leave leave encashment resignation service regulations

Smt. Umadevi Rajkumar Jeure & Ors. v. The District Collector, Solapur & Ors.

10 Nov 2015 · A.A. Sayed; S.C. Gupte

A Lok Adalat award is not an award of the court under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for Section 28A purposes, and thus cannot enable other landholders to seek re-determination of compensation.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 28A Lok Adalat Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

Bks Galaxy Realtors LLP v. Sharp Properties & Ors.

05 Nov 2015 · R. I. Chagla

The Bombay High Court held that the arbitration clause in an Agreement for Sale ceases upon execution of the Conveyance Deed, and subsidiary documents without specific arbitration clauses are not covered, dismissing the appeal to refer the suit to arbitration.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration Clause Agreement for Sale Conveyance Deed Section 8 Arbitration Act

Bank of Maharashtra v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

02 Nov 2015 · G. S. Kulkarni; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Cites 2 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that a customs authority’s letter restraining a bank from enforcing security interest under the SARFAESI Act is invalid, affirming the bank’s priority as a secured creditor over customs claims.

civil petition_allowed Significant SARFAESI Act Customs Act Section 142A Section 35 SARFAESI

Vishwesh Dogra Suvarna v. State of Maharashtra

31 Oct 2015 · Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal and declared a missing person presumed dead after seven years of absence based on circumstantial evidence and statutory presumption under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant presumption of death missing person Section 108 Indian Evidence Act circumstantial evidence

Pen Municipal Council v. Shekhar B. Abhang

30 Oct 2015 · SANDEEP V. MARNE

The Bombay High Court upheld the Industrial Court’s order directing regularization of a temporary Tax Inspector appointed against a sanctioned post following due process and long continuous service, dismissing the Municipal Council’s challenge.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant regularization of service temporary appointment unfair labour practice Industrial Court powers