High Court of Bombay
5,131 judgments
Shivmoori Jagatdev Kushwaha v. Assistant Division Engineer
The Bombay High Court upheld eviction of a petitioner occupying railway premises under a temporary agreement, affirming that railway property qualifies as public premises under the Public Premises Act, 1971, and dismissed challenges to procedural and jurisdictional aspects of the eviction.
Laguna Resort Pvt. Ltd. v. Concept Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award and held that time spent in prior arbitration proceedings set aside can be excluded under Section 43(4) of the Arbitration Act even if fresh arbitration arises under a different agreement or merged entity, and that jurisdictional objections not raised before the arbitrator cannot be belatedly raised before the Court.
Kartik Regency Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition directing the Competent Authority to grant Deemed Conveyance to the petitioner Co-operative Housing Society under Section 11 of MOFA, holding that the promoter’s failure to execute conveyance triggered the statutory remedy despite pending challenges to the Society’s registration.
Interocean Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd v. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd
The Bombay High Court dismissed Interocean's appeal, holding that the arbitral tribunal erred in contract interpretation by imposing liability on ONGC for repairs and improperly applying the contra proferentem rule, and set aside the excessive interest awarded.
Lonavala Khandala Citizens Forum v. Municipal Council of Lonavala
The Bombay High Court upheld judicial oversight via an Expert Committee to regulate development in Lonavala-Khandala, ensuring infrastructure adequacy and environmental protection under Article 21.
Anant Keshav Rajegaonkar v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that failure to acquire reserved land within the statutory period after a valid Purchase Notice under Section 127 MRTP Act causes the reservation to lapse, invalidating any subsequent reservation.
Govind Kondiba Tanpure & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL challenging land allotment to a public trust on grounds of unexplained delay and laches but directed inquiry into alleged breach of lease conditions involving mortgaging of the land.
The State of Maharashtra v. Sunita Shankarrao Vhatkar
The Bombay High Court held that contract employees in government service cannot claim permanency solely on completing 240 days of service without sanctioned posts and proper procedure, but directed consideration of their regularization if the State Government decides to convert contract posts into regular ones.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mr. Sanjay Prabhakar Davane
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.
Louis D’Souza v. Hotel King’s Palace
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.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ashok Kisan Borade & Ors.
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.
Alpana Sanjay Kolhatkar & Ors. v. Vijay Kumar Amrut Gone & Ors.
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.
Manu @ Mohinder Madhuresh v. The State of Maharashtra
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.
Rahul Vishwas Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
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.
Padmaja Pradip Walawalkar v. Sadanand Govind Bagave
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.
National Leasing Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income
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.
Paresh H. Mehta v. The Union of India
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.
Mehboob Ayub Khan & Ors. v. Afzal Khan & Ors.
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.
Bhanuchandra J. Doshi v. M/s. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. & M/s. R. Natwarlal Parekh Securities P. Ltd.
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.
Narhari Chandrayya Kanda v. Heren Damji Gala
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.