High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

Reliance Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Satyananda Mohanty

28 Feb 2006 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that a separation request via E-Portal constitutes resignation but without valid acceptance by the employer, reinstatement is not warranted and compensation is appropriate.

labor appeal_allowed Significant voluntary resignation separation request E-Portal acceptance of resignation

M/s. Chalet Hotels Ltd. v. Bhikan Laxman Deokar

18 Feb 2006 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court affirmed employer-employee relationship between a hotel and a driver engaged through contractors, held his termination illegal, and awarded lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages.

labor other Significant employer-employee relationship termination reinstatement backwages

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Prakash Vasant Hardikar

29 Jan 2006 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 1 · Cited by 5

The High Court held that the Respondent's dismissal for selling already sold tickets was justified but rendered ineffective due to reinstatement, denying backwages for the dismissal period while directing release of retirement benefits with interest.

labor petition_partly_allowed Significant domestic enquiry dismissal backwages reinstatement

Jayashree Anil Satheye v. Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd.

01 Jan 2006 · Dhiraj Singh Thakur; Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging pay fixation under the Revised Pay Rules, holding that bunching increments apply only when pay fixation results in pay bunching at the minimum pay band, which was not the case for the petitioner.

service_law petition_dismissed bunching increments Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 pay fixation 6th Central Pay Commission

Atos India Private Limited v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

01 Jan 2006 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that providing manpower services for software maintenance and bug fixing without transfer of intellectual property rights is a contract of service and not sale liable to VAT under the MVAT Act.

tax appeal_allowed Significant contract of service sale of software maintenance and bug fixing intellectual property rights

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State v. M/s. Wockhardt Ltd.

31 Dec 2005 · M.S. Sonak; Advait M. Sethna
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Bombay High Court held that the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proof to classify the product as a plant growth promoter, upholding the Tribunal's finding that it is a fertiliser taxable at a lower rate.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Sales Tax Product Classification Fertiliser Plant Growth Promoter

Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Mahendra Shah

30 Sep 2005 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The High Court held that the Special Court has discretion to reduce interest on SEBI penalty amounts under Section 24A, applying 6% interest pre-2013 and 12% post-2013, and that SEBI's consent is not mandatory for compounding offences.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant SEBI Act 1992 Section 24(2) Section 24A Section 28A

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Dr. Shridhar Shripad Karandikar

28 Sep 2005 · Rajesh S. Patil

The High Court enhanced compensation for the death of a non-earning spouse in a motor accident, affirming liability of the truck owner and insurer, and clarified principles on notional income, future prospects, multiplier, and non-deduction of group insurance amounts.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim compensation notional income future prospects

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Dr. Shridhar Shripad Karandikar

28 Sep 2005 · Rajesh S. Patil

The High Court enhanced compensation in a fatal motor accident case, affirming liability of the truck driver for rash and negligent driving and clarifying principles for calculating compensation including future prospects and non-deduction of group insurance.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 Motor Accident Claim Rash and negligent driving

Islamic Republic of Iran v. K.T. Steel Industries LLP

26 Sep 2005 · K.R. Shriram; Rajesh S. Patil

The Bombay High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and upheld the ex parte decree against the Islamic Republic of Iran, holding that proper service was effected and the Applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay or valid defense.

civil petition_dismissed Significant condonation of delay foreign State service of summons sovereign immunity

The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of CGST & CX, Div-IX, Mumbai Central GST Commissioner

16 Sep 2005 · R. D. Dhanuka; S. M. Modak

The Bombay High Court quashed a 16-year-old Show Cause Notice due to inordinate delay and failure to inform the petitioner of its call book status, holding such delay violates natural justice.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Show Cause Notice call book delay in adjudication natural justice

Buniya Devi Chauhan v. The General Manager, Central Bank of India

24 Aug 2005 · Milind N. Jadhav
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Bombay High Court upheld the State Consumer Commission's order directing the bank to refund compensation to an illiterate widow after fraudulent withdrawals from a joint account, emphasizing bank negligence and regulatory violations.

civil appeal_allowed Significant joint account either or survivor bank negligence consumer dispute

Bagoria v. Kirad

16 Aug 2005 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging eviction decrees under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, holding that mandatory rent arrears deposit with interest and costs was not complied with, unlawful subletting was established, and bona fide requirement was proven, thereby upholding eviction.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section 3 exemption Section 15(3) rent deposit unlawful subletting

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gayatridham Phase Co-op. Housing Society

04 Aug 2005 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Bombay High Court upheld the National Consumer Commission’s order directing New India Assurance to pay insurance claim compensation, rejecting insurer’s limitation and non-payment of premium defenses due to its own operational negligence.

consumer_protection petition_dismissed Significant limitation consumer protection insurance policy renewal premium payment

Shri Sakharam Mahadev Jadhav and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors

25 Jul 2005 · M.S. Sonak; Kamal Khata
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Bombay High Court held that failure to take acquisition steps within the statutory period after a purchase notice under Section 127 MRTP Act results in automatic lapsing of land reservation, directing the State to notify the lapsing accordingly.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Section 127 Reservation lapsing Purchase notice

Akshay Uttam Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra

18 Jul 2005 · M.S. Karnik; S.M. Modak
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court allowed the petitioner’s claim for a Scheduled Tribe caste validity certificate based on valid certificates issued to close blood relatives, setting aside the Scrutiny Committee’s invalidation order.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Scheduled Tribe Certificate Caste validity certificate Scrutiny Committee Vigilance cell enquiry

Siddharth Constructions v. The State of Maharashtra

14 Jun 2005 · G. S. Patel; Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Bombay High Court upheld the termination of Siddharth Constructions as developer for default in transit rent payments and delay under section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, dismissing its writ petition challenging the decision.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Slum Rehabilitation Authority Section 13(2) Slum Act transit rent slum rehabilitation scheme

Aliasgar Ramzan Dekhani v. Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs

30 Dec 2004 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that mere registration of a Muslim Public Trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act does not automatically convert it into a Waqf under the Waqf Act, and set aside the Waqf Board's registration order made under Section 43 of the Waqf Act for lack of jurisdiction.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Waqf Act, 1995 Section 43 Waqf Act Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 Deeming fiction

Aliasgar Ramzan Dekhani v. Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs

30 Dec 2004 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Bombay High Court held that mere registration of a Muslim Public Trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act does not automatically convert it into a Waqf under Section 43 of the Waqf Act, 1995, and set aside the Waqf Board's registration and the Tribunal's dismissal of the challenge thereto.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Waqf Act, 1995 Section 43 Waqf Act Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 Deeming fiction

Aliasgar Ramzan Dekhani v. Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs

30 Dec 2004 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that mere registration of a Muslim Public Trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act does not automatically convert it into a Waqf under Section 43 of the Waqf Act, 1995, and set aside the Waqf Board's registration order and the Tribunal's dismissal of the challenge thereto.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Waqf Act, 1995 Section 43 Waqf Act Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 Deeming fiction