High Court of Bombay
5,131 judgments
M/s. Gangotri Developers v. Shri Ajit Anantrao Butte Patil & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a plaint cannot be summarily rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on disputed factual grounds regarding partnership registration, restoring the suit for trial and emphasizing that such issues require evidence and cannot be decided at the pleading stage.
Gouri Abhay Bhide v. Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking direction to CBI/ED to investigate allegations against political figures, holding that vague and speculative allegations without prima facie evidence do not warrant judicially ordered investigation under Article 226.
XYZ v. The Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that the Central Government's 2023 notification prohibiting donor gametes in surrogacy is contrary to the Surrogacy Act and unconstitutional as applied to petitioners with medical necessity, allowing them to proceed with surrogacy without complying with that condition.
The Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East Commissionerate v. The Securities and Exchange Board of India
The Bombay High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CESTAT's finding that extended limitation for service tax demand could not be invoked without evidence of wilful suppression or fraud by SEBI.
MRK Enterprises v. Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority & Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition directing issuance of occupancy certificate without requiring revised CRZ clearance, applying paragraph 8(V)(c)(2)(i) of CRZ Notification 2011 to ongoing redevelopment projects with prior development permission under DCR 1991.
Karanja Terminal & Logistics Pvt Ltd v. Sahara Dredging Ltd
The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral interim order directing security for an admitted claim, emphasizing limited judicial interference in discretionary arbitral interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act.
Union of India v. Chandrakant Sakharam Joshi
The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal's order setting aside the removal penalty due to cumulative procedural violations including failure to conduct mandatory general examination under Rule 9(21), ordering reinstatement without back wages.
Niloufer Soli Lam v. Zarir Pesi Bharucha
The Bombay High Court held that matrimonial disputes relating to property fall exclusively within the Family Court's jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act, 1984, and transferred the suit filed in the High Court to the Family Court.
Kokuyo Camlin Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that challenges to municipal tax assessment orders must be pursued through the statutory appeal under Section 406 of the MMC Act, dismissing writ petitions filed by Kokuyo Camlin Ltd. and keeping open the vires challenge to Section 152D.
M/s.R.N. Ghanekar & Co. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
The court held that arbitration claims must be initiated within three years from the accrual of cause of action, and invocation of a pre-arbitration dispute resolution clause is not a pre-condition for arbitration, dismissing the appellant's claim as barred by limitation.
Arvind Gopalrao Basutkar & Ors v. Registrar General & Ors
The Bombay High Court held that pay scale benefits granted to Original Side officers must be extended to similarly placed Appellate Side officers to uphold equality under Article 14, directing immediate implementation of parity in service conditions.
Universal Cables Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld CIDCO's decision to hold BNC technically qualified in a tender for underground cable works, emphasizing judicial restraint in tender matters and rejecting petitioners' challenge of arbitrariness and procedural irregularities.
Jagdish Sajjankumar Banka v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court allowed anticipatory bail to appellants in a SC/ST Act case, holding that the bar under Section 18 applies only if a prima facie case is made out and that malafide or motivated complaints do not attract the bar.
The Barshi Bar Association v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that compromise decrees partitioning agricultural land are not compulsorily registrable and attract only nominal stamp duty under Maharashtra law, invalidating the Collector's Circular insisting otherwise.
Noshir Darabshaw Talati v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment based on a mere change of opinion without new tangible material is invalid and quashed the reassessment notice and order.
Digi1 Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening of income tax assessment due to lack of new tangible material and procedural irregularities, emphasizing the necessity of a rational nexus between information and escaped income.
Framji Dinshaw Petit Parsee Sanatorium v. Income Tax Officer and Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 without fresh tangible material is impermissible and upheld the petitioner charitable trust's right to carry forward and set off deficit, quashing the reassessment notice and order.
Angsley Investments Limited v. Jupiter Denizcilik Tasimacilik Mumessillik San. Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi
The Bombay High Court held that admiralty jurisdiction requires vessels to be parties and within territorial jurisdiction for arrest, disallowed injunctions against non-parties, and set aside decree against appellant for lack of jurisdiction.
Ravindra Shivram Salvi v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's arms licence under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, holding that the licensing authority's subjective satisfaction based on criminal cases registered against the petitioner justified the revocation to maintain public peace.
Lyka Labs Limited & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
The Bombay High Court held that an authorized signatory of a company is not the 'drawer' under the Negotiable Instruments Act and cannot be directed to pay interim compensation under section 143A, which applies solely to the drawer (the company).