High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Maharashtra Maritime Board v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that construction of a passenger jetty within the 50-meter mangrove buffer zone under CRZ-I is permissible as a public utility project under the CRZ Notification 2011, subject to environmental safeguards and judicial approval.
Uday Bhanudas Gujar v. Madan Yeshwant Diwan & Ors.
The High Court held that the Divisional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to cancel a sale permission under the Maharashtra Rehabilitation Act after execution of a registered sale deed, restoring the permission and validating the sale.
M/s. Satra Plaza Premises Co-op. Soc. Ltd. v. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
The Bombay High Court held that revocation of an Occupancy Certificate without compliance with Section 51 of the MRTP Act and without hearing affected third parties is illegal, quashing the cancellation order and declaring the conditional NOC requirement invalid.
Lekha Ali Shaikh v. Chief Executive Officer, Office of the Cantonment Board
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging demolition of unauthorized construction in a Red Zone, holding that illegal structures cannot be regularized by deemed sanction or subsequent applications.
Sumitra Shridhar Khane v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that acquisition of land without compensation violates Article 300A, and delay cannot bar the right to compensation, directing the State to complete acquisition and pay compensation.
R. B. Bohora Educational & Welfare Trust v. Vijay Mundaware & Ors.
The High Court held that the Charity Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction under Section 41A by directing a public trust to issue a public apology unrelated to trust property or income, and quashed the impugned order.
Vibrant Securities Private Limited v. Income-tax Officer & Ors.
The Bombay High Court set aside the reopening notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2014-15, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to satisfy jurisdictional conditions and the reassessment was based on impermissible change of opinion.
Vedanta Limited v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment based on mere change of opinion is invalid and upheld the allowability of interest on borrowed capital used for business under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated on a mere change of opinion when the issue was already considered during original assessment, quashing the impugned notices and orders.
Geopreneur Realty Private Limited v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment under Section 148 based solely on a change of opinion is impermissible and quashed the reopening notice issued to the petitioner.
Mira Bhavin Mehta v. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (3) (1)
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated solely on a change of opinion where the issue was already considered during original assessment, and quashed the reopening notices issued on that basis.
Godrej Projects Development Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Officer & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment based on share premium receipt is invalid if it is a mere change of opinion without independent reason to believe and that share premium is a capital receipt not taxable for AY 2009-10.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Paramjitsingh Ghai & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld mesne profits payable from lease termination till delivery of possession, affirming valuation and rejecting BPCL’s challenge to quantum and payment period extension.
Krishna Bhagwan Kotak v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court discharged private accused in a CBI cheating case due to absence of prima facie material and confirmation by SCI that no wrongful loss was caused as disputed invoices were neither authorized nor paid.
Ashraf Chitalwala v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16 due to non-communication of reasons recorded and absence of failure to disclose material facts, holding that reopening on mere change of opinion is impermissible.
Sunil v. Star India Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that no copyright subsists in a mere film title and registrations with film producers’ associations do not confer enforceable rights against non-members, dismissing the plaintiff’s injunction application against the use of the title 'LOOTERE' for a web series.
Rakesh @ Pintya Ramesh Rane v. The State of Maharashtra
The High Court set aside the murder convictions due to unreliable identification parade and untrustworthy dying declaration, upholding acquittals for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Mapra Laboratories Private Limited v. The Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2008-2009, holding that no failure to disclose material facts occurred and the reassessment amounted to impermissible change of opinion.
Kiran Harsukhlal Hemani v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the CBDT's corrigendum notification restricting the benefit of Section 80IB(10) proviso to housing projects approved between 2004 and 2008, holding it prospective and intra vires.
Kiran Harsukhlal Hemani v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of a CBDT corrigendum notification restricting tax deduction benefits under Section 80IB(10) to projects approved between 2004 and 2008, holding the proviso prospective and the notification intra vires.