High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. M/s. Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that under Section 93-A of the ESI Act, a factory owner is not liable for contribution payments for periods after leasing out the factory, dismissing the ESIC's appeal against M/s. Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Suryakant Tarachand Bhatewara & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of land acquisition awards for the Neera Deodhar Project, directed payment of balance compensation with interest, and ordered initiation of acquisition proceedings for remaining land under the Fair Compensation Act.
Rangrao Mahadu Pethkar v. Sadashiv Maruti Vibhute & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the termination of tenancy and restoration of possession to landlords where the tenant defaulted on rent for three years with proper notices under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, rejecting the tenant’s claim of deemed purchase and non-service of termination notice.
Reliance Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax Mumbai City-VI
The Bombay High Court held that assessment orders passed against non-existent amalgamating companies post-merger are void ab initio and framed a substantial question of law on jurisdiction, permitting additional evidence to determine the Assessing Officer's knowledge of the merger.
Seal International Limited v. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
The Bombay High Court held that admitted documents and their contents under Order XII Rule 2-A CPC are deemed proved without further proof, establishing appellant's ownership and directing refund of illegally auctioned goods' sale proceeds.
M/s. Patil Roadlines and Ors. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of reservation and concession provisions for SC/ST and MSE bidders in BPCL's tender, dismissing the petition challenging the same as barred by estoppel and consistent with affirmative action under Article 46.
Tukaram Sadashiv Mane v. The Chairman, The Mumbai Port Trust
The Bombay High Court upheld the fairness of departmental enquiry against a Station Master but substituted his dismissal with compulsory retirement, holding the original punishment disproportionate given mitigating factors.
Clear Media (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment without new tangible material, when the issue was considered in the original order, is invalid as it amounts to impermissible change of opinion.
Survival Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that reopening of income tax assessment beyond four years is impermissible without tangible new material evidencing failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, and set aside the reopening notice and order in absence of such material.
Tahnee Heights CHS Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14, holding that reopening beyond four years requires specific failure to disclose material facts and cannot be based on mere change of opinion.
Konark Life Spaces v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment beyond four years without new material and based on mere change of opinion is invalid, quashing the reassessment notice issued to the petitioner.
Lehman Brothers Investments Pte. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court held that reopening of income tax assessment under Section 148 requires new tangible material and cannot be based on mere change of opinion or retrospective amendments, and shares of private companies do not qualify as securities under Section 112(1)(c)(iii) for A.Y. 2015-16.
Jetair Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for lack of new tangible material and held that mere difference in commission rates with related parties does not justify reopening of assessment.
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-3(4), Mumbai
The Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment after four years was invalid as the settlement amount was not a penalty and the petitioner had disclosed all material facts, thus quashing the reopening notice and related order.
Somnath Tukaram Kuber v. Meghraj Medeppa Kadadi
The High Court dismissed the writ petition upholding eviction on grounds of rent default, unauthorized structural changes, change of user, and nuisance, affirming that a respondent can challenge adverse findings without cross-objections when the decree is in their favour.
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that 'Castor Oil First Special Grade' is identical to 'Castor Oil Medicinal' for Cash Compensatory Support Scheme benefits despite a change in testing method, allowing the petitioners' refund claim for the disputed period.
Bharat Nathalal Kansara v. Praful Nathalal Kansara & Anr.
The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's suit for recovery of money and possession, holding that the claim was barred by limitation and that the Plaintiff had only permissive possession surrendered validly without consideration under the 2001 MOU.
Ramchandra Sitaram Supanekar and Ors. v. Uttamrao Yashwant Khot and Ors.
The Bombay High Court set aside the MRT's order upholding tenancy rights, holding that the claimant failed to prove tenancy over disputed land due to lack of evidence of rent payment, mutation, and proper cultivation.
Pilaji Sursinh Jadhavrao v. Regional Passport Office Pune
The Bombay High Court held that passport reissuance cannot be granted during pending criminal proceedings without court permission, upholding statutory provisions and dismissing the writ petition.
G. Premjee Trading Private Limited v. Abdul Kader Haji Noormohammed & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a sale agreement executed by a mother without legal guardianship under Mohammedan law is void as to minors, denying specific performance and granting refund of earnest money.