High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

Ketan Vallabhji Veera v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

24 Sep 2025 · Gauri Godse

The Bombay High Court held that disputes arising from partnership dissolution agreements qualify as commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, dismissing applications to return or renumber the plaint.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Partnership dissolution Commercial dispute Order VII Rule 10 CPC

Faizal Salim Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & ABC

24 Sep 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Rajesh S. Patil

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition to quash criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act despite victim's consent and subsequent marriage, reaffirming that such cases cannot be quashed post-majority consent when the victim was a minor at the time of offence.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant POCSO Act quashing of criminal proceedings victim consent minor victim

Mr. Vinay s/o. Jagannath Mhatre v. Administrative/Establishment Officer & Ors.

23 Sep 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court held that a retired employee validly promoted and exempted from a departmental exam is entitled to pension based on higher grade pay and recovery of alleged excess payments from retiral benefits is impermissible if it causes hardship.

administrative petition_allowed Significant time bound promotion grade pay fixation departmental qualifying examination recovery of excess payment

Hukumchand Govindrao Aamdare & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

23 Sep 2025 · Revati Mohite Dere; Sandesh D. Patil

The Bombay High Court held that appointment of an Administrator without deciding a pending extension proposal for the Managing Committee under the APMC Act is illegal and directed immediate elections and restoration of the elected body.

administrative petition_allowed Significant APMC Act 1963 Section 15A Administrator appointment Extension of term

Pandurang Tatu Keni v. Laxman Sakharam Patil

23 Sep 2025 · M.M. Sathaye
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld the landlord’s bona-fide requirement for eviction despite subsequent events, setting aside the appellate court’s reversal and confirming eviction of the tenant.

civil appeal_allowed Significant bona-fide requirement eviction Bombay Rents Act landlord-tenant dispute

Anupriya Santosh Unnithan v. Santosh Ramchandra Unnithan

23 Sep 2025 · Revati Mohite Dere; Sandesh D. Patil
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court set aside a Family Court divorce decree granted on the ground of cruelty without reasons or evidence, emphasizing the necessity of reasoned judgments and fair opportunity to contest matrimonial proceedings.

family appeal_allowed Significant Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 divorce cruelty family court

Hukumchand Govindrao Aamdare & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

23 Sep 2025 · Revati Mohite Dere; Sandesh D. Patil

The court held that appointing an Administrator without deciding a pending extension proposal under the APMC Act is illegal, directing restoration of the elected Managing Committee and immediate conduct of elections.

administrative petition_allowed Significant APMC Act 1963 Section 14 Section 15 Section 15A

wp58162025 07981473

23 Sep 2025 · Jitendra Jain; M. S. Sonak

The Bombay High Court held that omission of CGST Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) without a savings clause causes lapse of pending proceedings under them, invalidating related show cause notices and recovery orders.

tax appeal_allowed Significant CGST Rules 2017 Rule 89(4B) Rule 96(10) Omission of statutory rules

Unique Integrated Transport And Management Consultancies Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

23 Sep 2025 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

The Bombay High Court upheld that interest under an arbitral award must be computed as simple interest on all claims awarded, excluding pre-award interest from the principal for post-award interest calculation, and dismissed MTNL's attempt to reopen settled issues.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant arbitral award interest computation simple interest compound interest

National Pharmaceuticals v. Joint Commissioner (K.D.)

22 Sep 2025 · N. J. Jamadar

The Bombay High Court quashed stop production orders issued without prior hearing under Rule 85(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, emphasizing mandatory procedural fairness before suspending or cancelling pharmaceutical manufacturing licenses.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Rule 85(2) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 stop production order natural justice

Rupesh Laxman Gaikwad v. Commissioner of Police, Thane & Ors.

22 Sep 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale

The Bombay High Court quashed a detention order due to an unexplained one-year delay in execution, holding that such delay breaks the necessary proximate link and undermines the detaining authority's satisfaction.

criminal petition_allowed Significant detention order delay in execution subjective satisfaction live and proximate link

Sandip Chintaman Samant v. State of Maharashtra

22 Sep 2025 · Neela Gokhale

The Bombay High Court rejected bail to the accused in a large-scale financial fraud case, holding that oral communication of grounds of arrest suffices under Section 50 CrPC absent demonstrable prejudice.

criminal bail_denied Significant Section 50 CrPC grounds of arrest Article 22(1) Constitution bail application

Rakesh Vilas Renuse v. The State of Maharashtra

20 Sep 2025 · Madhav J. Jamdar

The Bombay High Court emphasized the constitutional mandate for expeditious disposal of anticipatory bail applications and directed proper cooperation from advocates and investigating agencies to uphold personal liberty.

criminal other Significant anticipatory bail personal liberty Article 14 Article 21

Sameer @ Panna Mehboob Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra

20 Sep 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale

The Bombay High Court quashed a preventive detention order due to unexplained 70-day delay in recording witness statements after the petitioner’s bail, emphasizing the need for prompt action under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act.

criminal petition_allowed Significant preventive detention unexplained delay in-camera statements Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act

Union of India v. Shaila Shyamsunder Shringare

20 Sep 2025 · Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ; Gautam A. Ankhand, J.
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court quashed contempt proceedings against a government officer for alleged non-compliance with a Tribunal order, holding that wilful disobedience was not established and procedural safeguards were ignored.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 wilful disobedience Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992 Assured Career Progression (ACP)

Amol Motiram Borde v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

19 Sep 2025 · Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court dismissed the bail application of an accused in a rape case, holding that serious offences with strong prima facie evidence and antecedents do not warrant bail, and procedural lapses in communicating grounds of arrest absent prejudice do not invalidate arrest.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail Section 376 IPC rape Section 50 Cr.P.C.

Shrikrishna Kulkarni v. The State of Maharashtra

19 Sep 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court held that an expelled trade union member who was a member for over six months is entitled to a consent certificate under Section 28(1-A) of the Trade Unions Act to raise an internal dispute before the Industrial Court.

labor petition_allowed Significant Trade Unions Act, 1926 Section 28(1-A) Consent certificate Trade union membership

Sandeepkumar Pandharilal Yadav v. The State of Maharashtra

19 Sep 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale

The Bombay High Court reduced the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC, holding the killing occurred in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel without premeditation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 304 Part-II IPC Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC

Telford Marine DMCC v. Bhambhani Shipping Limited and Another

19 Sep 2025 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that interim injunctions under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act cannot restrain the sale of a vessel already validly sold to a bona fide purchaser, emphasizing that such reliefs are ancillary to enforcement proceedings and cannot be used to circumvent the enforcement regime.

commercial_arbitration petition_dismissed Significant Section 9 Arbitration Act interim relief foreign arbitral award sale of vessel

Bipin Chandulal Sodha v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

18 Sep 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court dismissed a review petition seeking re-appraisal of facts, holding that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent errors and imposed costs for abuse of process.

civil petition_dismissed Review Petition Error apparent on face of record Abuse of process Re-appreciation of facts