High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v. Agfa India Pvt. Ltd.

16 Jan 2012 · M.S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain · [2018] 93 taxmann.com 153
Cites 2 · Cited by 3

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act are invalid if initiated without the Assessing Officer's independent reason to believe and merely on directions of superior officers or borrowed satisfaction.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant reassessment reason to believe Assessing Officer Transfer Price Officer

Sansar Texturisers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

13 Jan 2012 · G. S. Kulkarni; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Bombay High Court dismissed a belated writ petition challenging anti-dumping duty notifications and seeking refund, holding it barred by delay, laches, and maintainability principles under Article 226.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Article 226 Constitution of India anti-dumping duty Customs Tariff Act 1975 writ petition maintainability

Swapnapurti SRA Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. The Chief Executive Officer, SRA

11 Jan 2012 · Madhav J. Jamdar

The Bombay High Court upheld the SRA's authority to verify slum dwellers' consent through supervised meetings and dismissed challenges to the appointment of a new developer under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Act.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Slum Rehabilitation Authority Section 13(2) Slum Act Consent verification General Body Meeting

Yogesh Chandulal Mehta and Suresh Chabndulal Mehta v. The State of Maharashtra and Others

04 Jan 2012 · R. D. Dhanuka; M. M. Sathaye
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Bombay High Court quashed the acquisition of petitioners' slum land under Section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act for failure to issue mandatory notice and violation of natural justice, upholding owners' preferential redevelopment rights.

property appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Slum Areas Act Section 14(1) Slum Rehabilitation Scheme acquisition of land

Amol Ankush Parge & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

24 Nov 2011 · A. S. Gadkari; Shyam C. Chandak

The Bombay High Court upheld the murder convictions of two accused while acquitting others due to insufficient evidence of common unlawful assembly and involvement.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 324 IPC Section 149 IPC unlawful assembly

Kiran B. Pulekar v. The Union of India

18 Nov 2011 · Nitin Jamdar; M. M. Sathaye
Cites 0 · Cited by 20

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging termination for unauthorized absence, holding that due disciplinary procedure was followed and allegations of malice were unsubstantiated.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary inquiry unauthorized absence natural justice malice

M/s. Shah Rameshchandra Nihalchand & Co. and Others v. S. Bose Commissioner of Tax-13 and The State of Maharashtra

18 Nov 2011 · Jitendra Jain
Cites 1 · Cited by 6

The High Court held that partners of a firm cannot be impleaded as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without prior sanction under Section 279 of the Income Tax Act and in absence of prima facie evidence under Section 278B, setting aside the Sessions Court order allowing such impleadment.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 319 Cr.P.C. Section 279 Income Tax Act Section 278B Income Tax Act sanction requirement

Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Limited v. State of Maharashtra

18 Oct 2011 · Amit Borkar, J.

The High Court held that a registered Development Agreement creates a subsisting legal interest that cannot be unilaterally cancelled, and upheld the validity of attachment of the developer’s rights under recovery proceedings, quashing the Revisional Authority’s order that exceeded its jurisdiction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Development Agreement Attachment Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules Registered Instrument

ICICI Bank Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

30 Sep 2011 · Nitin Jamdar; N.R. Borkar
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR alleging criminal offences in a loan recovery dispute, holding it to be a civil matter and abuse of criminal process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing FIR Section 482 CrPC loan recovery dispute non-performing asset

Citizen Constructions v. Parvez Mohammed Yusuf Kokani

28 Sep 2011 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 17

The High Court modified a blanket injunction restraining transfer of a disputed plot, emphasizing the need to balance equities where the plaintiff’s claim is based on an unregistered agreement executed before vendors acquired title, while the defendant holds registered sale deed and has commenced construction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Agreement for Sale Specific Performance Temporary Injunction Registered Sale Deed

Shyamsundar Radhyesham Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra

15 Sep 2011 · Amit Borkar

The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail in a land forgery case involving long-registered documents and delayed FIR, balancing liberty with investigation safeguards.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail forgery public documents 7/12 extract

Sandeep Thakur v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

07 Sep 2011 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ; Arif S. Doctor, J
Cites 0 · Cited by 7

The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of UDCPR parking provisions but directed NMMC to conduct a fresh expert study and amend regulations to ensure adequate parking, emphasizing limited judicial interference in subordinate legislation unless manifest arbitrariness is shown.

administrative other Significant Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations UDCPR parking norms subordinate legislation

The State of Maharashtra v. Shri Chandrakant Dhondiram Gurav

16 Aug 2011 · Sandeep V. Marne

The High Court set aside a dismissal order due to unfair departmental enquiry lacking opportunity for cross-examination, directing reinstatement with 50% backwages while emphasizing adherence to natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.

labor petition_allowed Significant departmental enquiry natural justice cross-examination backwages

Yasin Gulab Shikalkar v. Maruti Nagnath Aware & Ors.

01 Aug 2011 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court allowed the petitioner’s writ petition directing re-measurement of disputed land by appointing a Court Commissioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, rejecting the res judicata objection and emphasizing the appellate court’s power to admit additional evidence.

civil petition_allowed Significant Court Commissioner Order 26 Rule 9 CPC Order 41 Rule 27 CPC measurement of land

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Supreme Metal Industries

01 Aug 2011 · Amit Borkar
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The High Court held that unauthorized commercial use of electricity in industrial premises attracts mandatory twice-rate penalty under Section 126, and only the registered consumer or authorized person can appeal under Section 127, rejecting tenant's claim to consumer status.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Electricity Act 2003 Section 126 Section 127 unauthorized use of electricity

Raptakos Breet & Company Ltd. v. Gajanan M. Sonawane

24 Jun 2011 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court modified orders awarding back wages to a dismissed employee, directing lump sum compensation instead, affirming limited interference with Labour Court findings under Article 227.

labor appeal_allowed Significant domestic enquiry unfair labour practice back wages dismissal from service

National Iranian Tanker Company v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd

13 Jun 2011 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award holding a demurrage claim time-barred, ruling that correspondence on undisputed invoices did not reset the limitation period under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

commercial_arbitration petition_dismissed Significant demurrage limitation period acknowledgment of liability repudiation

M/s. Satyam Construction v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Ors.

02 Jun 2011 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that stamp duty paid on a Development Agreement is refundable under the extended limitation period of the Proviso to Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, treating such agreements on par with conveyances, and awarded interest on the refund.

tax petition_allowed Significant Development Agreement Stamp Duty Refund Maharashtra Stamp Act Section 47

Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck v. Maharukh Murad Oomrigar & Ors

24 May 2011 · BHARATI DANGRE

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition seeking transfer of a civil suit challenging a nomination to be tried along with a testamentary suit, holding that the suits involve distinct issues and parties and transfer is not justified under Section 24 CPC.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 24 CPC transfer of suit probate proceedings nomination validity

Sanjay Prakash Mane v. The State of Maharashtra

23 Mar 2011 · A. S. Gadkari; Shyam C. Chandak

The Bombay High Court acquitted appellants of murder charges due to unreliable eyewitness evidence but upheld their convictions for attempt to murder, granting benefit of doubt on the more serious offence.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant benefit of doubt eyewitness testimony identification parade Section 302 IPC