High Court of Bombay

5,061 judgments

Year:

Rajendra Shankar Raut v. The State of Maharashtra

09 Jul 2025 · Sarang V. Kotwal; Shyam C. Chandak

The Bombay High Court upheld the murder conviction of Accused No.1 with modified sentencing but acquitted Accused No.2 due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the necessity of proper examination under Section 313 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant murder circumstantial evidence self-inflicted injuries Section 302 IPC

Rawman Metal & Alloys v. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Thane

09 Jul 2025 · M.S. Sonak; Advait M. Sethna

The Bombay High Court held that Rule 86-A CGST Rules permits blocking of Input Tax Credit only if credit is available in the Electronic Credit Ledger at the time of the order, rejecting the concept of blocking future or nil credits.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Input Tax Credit Rule 86-A Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 Electronic Credit Ledger

Aditya Vishvanath Golwad v. The State of Maharashtra

09 Jul 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court quashed the rejection of a Scheduled Tribe certificate claim due to manipulated genealogical evidence and directed a fresh detailed inquiry into the petitioner’s and his father’s claims.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Scheduled Tribe Certificate genealogy validity certificate manipulation

Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited v. M/s. Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd.

08 Jul 2025 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

The Bombay High Court dismissed the Lender’s application for arbitration reference due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, holding that the cause of action and arbitration seat must have a real nexus with the Court’s territory.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant territorial jurisdiction arbitration agreement seat of arbitration cause of action

Nagani Akram Mohammad Shafi v. The Union of India & The State of Maharashtra

08 Jul 2025 · Amit Borkar, J.

The Bombay High Court held that offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 correspond to scheduled offences under the PMLA despite the repeal of the IPC, applying Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, and invalidated the executive notification attempting to substitute statutory references without legislative sanction.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Indian Penal Code, 1860 General Clauses Act, 1897 Section 8(1)

Dattatray Laxman Desai v. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority

08 Jul 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Sandeep V. Marne; M.M. Sathaye

The Bombay High Court held that the Supreme Court's Shantistar Builders judgment and related government resolution apply prospectively, denying retrospective benefit to schemes sanctioned before 31 January 1990.

property other Significant Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 Shantistar Builders judgment Government Resolution 15/10/1997 prospective application

Vinayak Baban Parab v. Snehal Vinayak Parab

07 Jul 2025 · Manjusha Deshpande

The High Court reduced the interim maintenance for a minor child from Rs.30,000 to Rs.23,250 per month, emphasizing that maintenance must be reasonable and based on the child's actual needs rather than speculative income claims.

family appeal_allowed Significant interim maintenance Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 26 child maintenance

Kishor Prabhakar Patwardhan v. The State of Maharashtra

04 Jul 2025 · Revati Mohite Dere; Neela Gokhale · 2015 SCC Online Bom. 3480

The Bombay High Court held that the period of an interim restraint order must be excluded from the limitation period under Section 23 of the Registration Act, allowing registration of documents presented after such restraint is lifted.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Registration Act 1908 Section 23 limitation period interim restraint order

Kishor Prabhakar Patwardhan v. The State of Maharashtra

04 Jul 2025 · Revati Mohite Dere; Neela Gokhale

The Bombay High Court held that the period of a court restraint order must be excluded from the limitation period under Section 23 of the Registration Act, allowing registration of documents presented after the statutory period due to bona fide delay.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Registration Act, 1908 Section 23 Limitation period Exclusion of restraint period

Kamlesh Mishra v. The State of Maharashtra

04 Jul 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Rajesh S. Patil

The Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 354-B and 506(II) IPC as the allegations were inherently improbable and motivated by malice, applying its inherent powers under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 354-B IPC Section 506 IPC Article 226 Constitution

Srinwati Mukherji v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

04 Jul 2025 · Manjusha Deshpande

The Bombay High Court held that a flat booked but not yet possessed does not qualify as a "Shared Household" under the DV Act, and relief directing payment of installments under Section 19 is not maintainable.

family petition_dismissed Significant Shared Household Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 2(s) Section 19

Ningbo Aux Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. v. Amstrad Consumer India Pvt. Ltd.

04 Jul 2025 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act cannot be granted against a third party deleted from enforcement proceedings and against whom the foreign arbitral award is not enforceable.

commercial_arbitration petition_dismissed Significant Section 9 Arbitration Act interim measures foreign award enforcement third party liability

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

03 Jul 2025 · B. P. Colabawalla; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that reopening income tax assessments beyond four years requires failure to disclose material facts and quashed reassessment notices issued on mere change of opinion without such failure.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 147 Section 148 Section 10(34)

Saravana Prasad v. Endemol India Private Limited

03 Jul 2025 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

The Bombay High Court held that interim deposit and disclosure directions under arbitration can be imposed on an OPC but not on its sole shareholder personally, reaffirming the limited liability protection of OPCs under the Companies Act.

commercial_arbitration appeal_allowed Significant One Person Company limited liability Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 17 interim measures

Baban Bhiva Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra

03 Jul 2025 · S. M. Modak

The Bombay High Court upheld conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC based on reliable dying declarations and corroborative evidence despite minor inconsistencies and investigation lacunae.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dying declaration Section 304 Part II IPC culpable homicide not amounting to murder burn injuries

Shashikant Shantaram Tavare v. The State of Maharashtra

03 Jul 2025 · Sarang V. Kotwal; Shyam C. Chandak

The Bombay High Court upheld the murder conviction of the appellant, rejecting his defence of joint suicide, holding that the victim’s injuries were homicidal and the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 302 IPC homicidal wounds suicidal wounds defence wounds

Vasant Krushant Vanjare v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune

02 Jul 2025 · Madhav J. Jamdar

The Bombay High Court allowed the second appeal holding that urgent demolition notices waive the requirement of Section 487 notice and that long-standing tenantable repairs cannot be treated as illegal new construction under municipal law.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 Section 487 notice Section 260 notices tenantable repairs

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Rukmini Deepak alias Dilip Kachare & Ors.

02 Jul 2025 · Shyam C. Chandak
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that compensation in motor accident claims can be enhanced in insurer's appeal without cross-appeal by claimants, death of owner does not bar claim survival, contributory negligence deduction must be reasoned, and insurer remains liable despite driver's fake license absent fundamental breach proof.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Compensation enhancement Contributory negligence Insurance liability

Shrikrishna Ramchandra Dharap v. Swaroop Surendranath Chopra

02 Jul 2025 · Somasekhar Sundaresan

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a decades-old handwritten insertion in a plaint prayer, holding no abuse of process or justification for interference under Order VI, Rule 16 CPC and Article 227.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order VI Rule 16 CPC abuse of process specific performance possession relief

Ravindra Eknath Kumavat v. M/s. Future Development Construction Company & Ors.

02 Jul 2025 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that the existence of a valid arbitration agreement must be prima facie established under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, and referred the parties, including non-signatories, to arbitration despite a disputed cancellation deed.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6A) Arbitration agreement Cancellation Deed