High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

Vijay Madhavrao Budhale v. Bhagoji Ganu Kamble

14 Mar 2011 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that a suit for specific performance contingent on government permission is within limitation from refusal after notice, non-joinder of necessary co-owner parties is fatal, possession under Section 53-A requires actual possession per agreement, and directed refund of earnest money with interest while denying specific performance.

civil appeal_partly_allowed Significant specific performance limitation Article 54 Limitation Act non-joinder of necessary parties

Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v. Union of India

08 Mar 2011 · K. R. Shriram; Neela Gokhale
Cites 0 · Cited by 6

The Bombay High Court held that reopening of income tax assessment beyond four years is invalid without failure to truly and fully disclose material facts, quashing the reassessment notice issued to Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 147 proviso Reopening of assessment

Sailappan Sodali Muthu v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

23 Feb 2011 · Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court quashed a Section 314 notice issued by the Municipal Corporation for failure to specify the statutory contravention, holding such omission renders the notice without jurisdiction.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Section 314 notice jurisdictional requirement contravention specification

Manoj Madhav Limaye & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

18 Feb 2011 · G. S. Kulkarni; Advait M. Sethna
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court upheld the municipal corporation's authority to levy regulatory license fees on sky signs and hoardings under the MMC Act post-GST, but struck down retrospective and arbitrary fee increases lacking proper approval.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant license fee sky signs hoardings Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act

Avinash Bharat Ahire v. The State of Maharashtra

29 Jan 2011 · G. S. Kulkarni; Aarti Sathe
Cites 1 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court set aside the Scrutiny Committee's invalidation of the petitioners' Scheduled Tribe claim, directing issuance of caste validity certificates based on substantial documentary evidence and clarifying that the affinity test is not conclusive.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Scheduled Tribe Certificate Caste Validity Certificate Affinity Test Tribe Claim

M/s. IVY Jewellery Pvt Ltd v. Shri Chandresh Sampat

18 Jan 2011 · R. N. Laddha

The Bombay High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 NI Act, holding that without assignment of liability, the accused cannot be held criminally liable for a dishonoured cheque issued by another.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act dishonoured cheque assignment of debt

Suvarna Netaji Patil v. Smita Ashok Patil

17 Jan 2011 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that a Birth Certificate issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act is admissible evidence and that the appointing authority's acceptance of the birth date therein over conflicting school records cannot be interfered with, allowing the appeal and setting aside the earlier decrees invalidating the appointment.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Birth Certificate admissibility Section 17(2) Registration of Births and Deaths Act Section 35 Indian Evidence Act Date of birth conflict

Dilip Baburao Karape v. The Union of India

14 Jan 2011 · Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 5

The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal holding that a lost ticket affidavit suffices to prove bona fide passenger status and that injury from falling in a crowded train compartment constitutes an untoward incident entitling the passenger to compensation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant bona fide passenger Railway Claims Tribunal Railways Act 1989 Section 123(c)(2)

Maharashtra Maritime Board v. Union of India

06 Jan 2011 · Dipankar Datta, CJ; G. S. Kulkarni, J.
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

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.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2011 CRZ-I mangrove buffer zone public utility project

Uday Bhanudas Gujar v. Madan Yeshwant Diwan & Ors.

13 Dec 2010 · Amit Borkar

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.

property petition_allowed Significant Maharashtra Rehabilitation Act, 1999 Section 12 permission appeal jurisdiction Maharashtra Land Revenue Code

M/s. Satra Plaza Premises Co-op. Soc. Ltd. v. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation

22 Nov 2010 · G. S. Kulkarni; Kamal Khata

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.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Occupancy Certificate Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act Section 51 MRTP Act No Objection Certificate

Lekha Ali Shaikh v. Chief Executive Officer, Office of the Cantonment Board

21 Nov 2010 · M.S. Sonak; Kamal Khata

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.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant unauthorized construction Red Zone Cantonments Act 2006 deemed sanction

Sumitra Shridhar Khane v. State of Maharashtra

26 Oct 2010 · G. S. Kulkarni; Somasekhar Sundaresan
Cites 1 · Cited by 5

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.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Article 300A Land Acquisition Act 1894 Compensation Delay and Laches

R. B. Bohora Educational & Welfare Trust v. Vijay Mundaware & Ors.

14 Oct 2010 · Amit Borkar

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.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 Section 41A Charity Commissioner public trust administration

Vibrant Securities Private Limited v. Income-tax Officer & Ors.

12 Oct 2010 · Dhiraj Singh Thakur; Madhav J. Jamdar
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

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.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 147 Section 148 Reassessment

Vedanta Limited v. Union of India

12 Oct 2010 · K.R. Shriram; Firdosh

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.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 148 Income Tax Act reopening of assessment change of opinion interest deduction

Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

12 Oct 2010 · K. R. Shriram; Kamal Khata
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

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.

tax petition_allowed Significant reassessment change of opinion Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148

Geopreneur Realty Private Limited v. Union of India

12 Oct 2010 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 0 · Cited by 18

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.

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

Mira Bhavin Mehta v. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (3) (1)

12 Oct 2010 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale

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.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 148 Reassessment Change of opinion

Godrej Projects Development Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Officer & Ors.

12 Oct 2010 · K. R. Shriram; Neela Gokhale
Cites 2 · Cited by 6

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.

tax petition_allowed Significant reopening of assessment Section 148 Income Tax Act share premium capital receipt