High Court of Bombay

5,061 judgments

Year:

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mr. Sanjay Prabhakar Davane

14 Jan 2009 · Shivkumar Dige
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court upheld the award of compensation to a claimant traveling as an owner of goods in a goods vehicle, rejecting the insurer's contention that he was a gratuitous passenger.

motor_accident_claims appeal_dismissed Significant gratuitous passenger owner of goods goods carriage vehicle motor accident compensation

Louis D’Souza v. Hotel King’s Palace

31 Dec 2008 · N. J. Jamadar

The High Court held that termination for union membership constitutes unfair labour practice within Industrial Court jurisdiction and allowed the complaint to proceed after petitioners deposit compensation received under settlement.

labor appeal_allowed Significant unfair labour practice trade union termination Industrial Court jurisdiction

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ashok Kisan Borade & Ors.

24 Dec 2008 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 5 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that eligibility for preferential treatment appointments under the Lad-Page Committee Scheme depends on the employee's designated post as specified in the Scheme, not on the nature of work performed, and set aside an Industrial Court order granting such appointment to the son of a retired Labour.

labor appeal_allowed Significant compassionate appointment preferential treatment appointment Lad-Page Committee Scheme designation vs nature of work

Alpana Sanjay Kolhatkar & Ors. v. Vijay Kumar Amrut Gone & Ors.

30 Nov 2008 · Madhav J. Jamdar

The Bombay High Court upheld the Additional Commissioner's order remanding an eviction case under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Act for fresh evidence, affirming that registered licence agreements are conclusive but allowing trial on disputed facts.

property petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Rent Control Act Section 24 Leave and Licence Agreement Conclusive evidence

Manu @ Mohinder Madhuresh v. The State of Maharashtra

22 Oct 2008 · G. S. Kulkarni; Advait M. Sethna
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and life sentence of the accused for the murder and sexual assault of a young woman, relying on consistent circumstantial evidence and thorough investigation.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 376 IPC circumstantial evidence murder

Rahul Vishwas Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

10 Oct 2008 · A. S. Gadkari; Rajesh S. Patil
Cites 0 · Cited by 12

The Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC based on mutual settlement and consent terms, holding that continuation would be abuse of process of law.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR Section 498-A IPC mutual settlement

Padmaja Pradip Walawalkar v. Sadanand Govind Bagave

31 Jul 2008 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s order setting aside tenancy rights claimed under Section 4(2) of the Tenancy Act due to failure to produce mandatory circumstantial evidence and petitioner’s admission of non-possession.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Section 4(2) deemed tenancy circumstantial evidence

National Leasing Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income

30 Jun 2008 · G. S. Kulkarni; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla

The Bombay High Court held that rental income derived by a company whose principal business is leasing properties is taxable as business income, not as income from house property, overruling the Tribunal's reliance on East India Housing.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Income from House Property Profits and Gains of Business Rental Income

Paresh H. Mehta v. The Union of India

16 May 2008 · M.S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 104

The Bombay High Court quashed a 15-year-old show cause notice under the Customs Act due to inordinate and unexplained delay in adjudication and failure to comply with procedural requirements.

administrative petition_allowed Significant show cause notice inordinate delay Customs Act 1962 Section 112(a)

Mehboob Ayub Khan & Ors. v. Afzal Khan & Ors.

04 Apr 2008 · G.S. Patel; Gauri Godse

The Bombay High Court held that a subsequent suit filed without prior leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC on the same cause of action is barred, and dismissed the High Court suit challenging a Will for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order II Rule 2 CPC subsequent suit cause of action leave to sue

Bhanuchandra J. Doshi v. M/s. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. & M/s. R. Natwarlal Parekh Securities P. Ltd.

18 Mar 2008 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

The Bombay High Court upheld arbitral awards under NSE bye-laws, holding the three-month deadline for awards is directory and rejecting claims of delay, back-dating, and unauthorized trades.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 NSE bye-laws Arbitral award deadline

Narhari Chandrayya Kanda v. Heren Damji Gala

10 Feb 2008 · Rajesh S. Patil
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court affirmed that tenancy rights devolve on legal heirs absent eviction or surrender, and the Court of Small Causes has exclusive jurisdiction over tenancy and possession suits under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 tenancy rights Court of Small Causes jurisdiction declaration of tenancy

Neeta Shivaji Tekawade v. The Director; The State of Maharashtra

06 Feb 2008 · A.S. Chandurkar; Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 18

The Bombay High Court held that the petitioner qualified for reservation under the sportsperson category as per the Government Resolution and quashed her appointment cancellation and related orders, directing reinstatement.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant sportsperson reservation Government Resolution 30th April 2005 National Championship Indian Olympic Committee

The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai v. Vidyavatidevi Ramnarayan Sahani

04 Feb 2008 · Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court upheld the quashing of a vague Section 354A notice issued by the Municipal Corporation for unauthorized repairs, emphasizing the mandatory requirement to pass a reasoned order upon receipt of a reply.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Section 354A Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act notice quashing unauthorized construction municipal corporation powers

Pravin Girish Chamaria & Nishit Bechar Patel v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

02 Feb 2008 · M. S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 10

The Bombay High Court held that disputes over apportionment of land acquisition compensation must be referred by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Civil Court, quashing the order directing disbursal to individual partners.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 Land Acquisition Officer Compensation apportionment Partnership firm property

Lovely Jogindersingh Sethi v. Nayeem Riyaz Khan & Ors.

30 Jan 2008 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court upheld eviction of tenant on grounds of bonafide requirement, default in rent, and nuisance, affirming applicability of Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and rejecting the tenant's challenge.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section 16(1)(g) Section 16(1)(i) bonafide requirement

Essar Shipping Limited v. Union of India

14 Dec 2007 · B. P. Colabawalla; Somasekhar Sundaresan
Cites 0 · Cited by 15

The Bombay High Court quashed a DGFT show cause notice as barred by res judicata, holding that a clarificatory policy circular operates prospectively and settled export incentive claims cannot be reopened retrospectively.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Foreign Trade Policy Served from India Scheme Policy Circular res judicata

Hersheys India Pvt. Ltd. v. Kanti Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

06 Dec 2007 · Somasekhar Sundaresan

The Bombay High Court partially set aside an arbitral award directing Rs. 75 lakhs compensation for implied contract renewal, holding such compensation unsupported by evidence and severable from the valid portions of the award.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitral award Section 34 Arbitration Act Contract extension Partial setting aside

Metal Box India Ltd. v. M/s. S.F. Engineer

04 Dec 2007 · Sandeep V. Marne · 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3189

A public limited company losing rent control protection under Maharashtra Rent Control Act due to paid-up share capital exceeding Rs. 1 crore as on 31 March 2000 cannot regain such protection by subsequent reduction of share capital.

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

Deepali Dinesh Naik v. Pramila Dilip Deshmukh

20 Nov 2007 · Amit Borkar
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The Bombay High Court held that disputes solely concerning grant of higher pay scale without dismissal, reduction in rank, or supersession do not fall within the School Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, dismissing the writ petition.

labor petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act Section 9 jurisdiction pay scale dispute reduction in rank