High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

Maruti Anantrao Hingane And Ors. v. The State Of Maharashtra And Ors.

27 Feb 2017 · Nitin Jamdar; M. M. Sathaye
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that Zilla Parishad teachers do not have a vested right to automatic absorption in Municipal Corporations upon inclusion of villages, validating the State's 2019 Government Resolution regulating transfer procedures.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Zilla Parishad teachers Municipal Corporation Government Resolution 2019 Transfer and absorption

Luxempire Realty Private Ltd. v. Eminence Landmarks LLP

25 Feb 2017 · G. S. Kulkarni; Advait M. Sethna
Cites 5 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that an arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 16 ACA to implead a non-signatory purchaser with notice of arbitration as a party "claiming through or under" a signatory, and writ interference is permissible only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction.

arbitration appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 kompetenz-kompetenz non-signatory impleadment

Mahindra Defence Systems Limited v. Ranjana Industries

15 Feb 2017 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award under the MSMED Act, ruling that objections to supplied goods must be raised within 15 days, and dismissed Mahindra's appeal challenging the award for unpaid dues to a micro enterprise.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant MSMED Act arbitration statutory deadline appointed day

Mahindra Defence Systems Limited v. Ranjana Industries

15 Feb 2017 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award in favor of a micro enterprise under the MSMED Act, holding that objections to goods must be raised within 15 days of delivery and that concurrent findings of fact by the arbitral tribunal are not liable to interference.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant MSMED Act Section 18 MSMED Act Section 34 Arbitration Act Section 37 Arbitration Act

Pravin Gajanan Thakur & Ors. v. Kalpana Virbhadra Raut & Ors.

01 Feb 2017 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that no appeal lies against an order condoning delay in filing an appeal under Section 251 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and the only remedy is revision before the State Government.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 Section 251 MLRC Section 252 MLRC condonation of delay

Kamlakar Haribhau Naik & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

27 Jan 2017 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that Aakarphod Patrak (Hissa Form No.4) is not a document of title and that mutation entries and revenue records govern land ownership.

property petition_dismissed Significant Aakarphod Patrak Hissa Form No.4 Mutation Entry Land Revenue Records

Magnum Unit ‘A’ CHS Limited v. The State of Maharashtra

24 Jan 2017 · Amit Borkar

The Bombay High Court held that a quasi judicial authority's prior final order rejecting deemed conveyance bars subsequent similar claims under res judicata, quashing the later conveyance granted to Respondent No. 3.

property petition_allowed Significant res judicata Section 11 Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act deemed conveyance quasi judicial authority

Nikhil Maruti Gosarade v. The District Collector, Sangli

20 Jan 2017 · Sunil P. Deshmukh; G. S. Kulkarni

The Bombay High Court held that an ad-hoc promotion does not confer regular Group B status, allowing compassionate appointment to the petitioner as dependent of a Group C employee.

administrative petition_allowed Significant compassionate appointment ad-hoc promotion Group B post Group C post

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 1

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