High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya Mahaswamiji v. Union of India

16 Jul 2025 · Revati Mohite Dere; Dr. Neela Gokhale

The Bombay High Court upheld the transfer of a captive elephant from a religious trust to a specialized welfare facility, prioritizing animal welfare over claimed religious rights.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant elephant welfare Wildlife Protection Act Article 25 Constitution animal rights

Aghadi Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

15 Jul 2025 · Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court allowed a Co-operative Housing Society's writ petition directing grant of deemed conveyance under MOFA, holding that minor procedural lapses and pending disputes do not bar conveyance if substantial compliance is shown.

property petition_allowed Significant deemed conveyance Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act IOD obligations Occupation Certificate

Mr. v. M. Mali, AGP for

15 Jul 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Gautam A. Ankhad

The Bombay High Court held that orders of Grievances Committees under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 must be implemented promptly and appropriately by affiliated colleges, empowering universities to impose penalties for non-compliance under the Penalties Uniform Statutes 2018.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Grievances Committee Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 Penalties Uniform Statutes 2018 affiliated colleges

Mr. v. M. Mali, AGP for

15 Jul 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Gautam A. Ankhand

The Bombay High Court held that affiliated colleges must promptly and appropriately implement Grievances Committees' decisions under the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, and empowered Universities to impose penalties for non-compliance under the Penalties Uniform Statutes 2018.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 Grievances Committee Penalties Uniform Statutes 2018 affiliated colleges

Manthan Kiran Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra

15 Jul 2025 · S.M. Modak

The High Court set aside the framing of charges for non-compliance with Sections 226 and 227 CrPC, directing the trial court to comply with mandatory procedural requirements before framing charges.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 226 CrPC Section 227 CrPC framing of charge prosecution opening

Patel Engineering Ltd. v. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd.

14 Jul 2025 · R.I. Chagla

The Bombay High Court upheld the arbitral award in a construction contract dispute, rejecting the petitioner’s challenge on grounds of coercion, additional claims, delay, and invocation of bank guarantees.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitral Award Commercial Contract Coercion and Duress Built-up Area

Seema Sureshchandra Mehata & Ors. v. Marvel Realtors & Developers Limited & Ors.

14 Jul 2025 · Gauri Godse

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition directing the civil court to execute the RERA possession order expeditiously, holding that procedural non-compliance cannot defeat substantive justice and imposed costs on the developer for delaying possession.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 MahaRERA execution of possession order Rule 4 Maharashtra RERA Rules 2017

Ramesh Himatlal Shah v. Union of India

14 Jul 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Gautam A. Ankhand

The Bombay High Court quashed a Look Out Circular against a businessman after investigation found no material against him, holding that continuation of LOC without pending proceedings is an abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Look Out Circular LOC Article 226 Section 528 BNSS

Sana Talha Khan v. State of Maharashtra

14 Jul 2025 · S.M. Modak
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld the first informant's right to orally oppose a discharge application, recognizing expanded victim participation rights under the 2009 Cr.P.C. amendment.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant victim rights discharge application right to be heard Code of Criminal Procedure 2009 amendment

Shankar Tukaram Gaikar and Ors. v. Suvarnaprabha Dattatraya Adurkar and Ors.

14 Jul 2025 · Milind N. Jadhav

The High Court dismissed the Gaikar family's writ petition challenging deletion of their names from Revenue Records due to inordinate delay without condonation, affirming that mutation entries do not confer title and title disputes must be resolved by Civil Courts.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Mutation Entry Condonation of delay Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act Section 32G

Borivali Shree Ganesh Nateshwar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd v. The Gorai Road MHB Cooperative Housing Society Association

14 Jul 2025 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

The Bombay High Court granted interim relief protecting a cooperative housing society's right to independently redevelop its property, holding that the foundational agreements underlying the redevelopment plan were terminated and the plan rendered incapable of performance, thus entitling the society to protection from interference under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_allowed Significant Section 9 Arbitration Act Cooperative Societies Act Section 91 interlocutory relief redevelopment agreement

Kailash Maheshwari v. State of Maharashtra

14 Jul 2025 · Amit Borkar

The Bombay High Court held that disqualification of cooperative society committee members under Section 75(5) requires individual responsibility and judicial exercise of discretion, quashing indiscriminate disqualification orders and remitting for fresh consideration.

administrative other Significant Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 Section 75 disqualification Managing Committee

M/s. Renuka Maternity Child Care and Fertility Clinic v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited & Ors.

12 Jul 2025 · Alok Aradhe, CJ; Sandeep V. Marne, J

The Bombay High Court set aside CIDCO's arbitrary cancellation of a hospital plot tender after State Government approval, directing allotment to the highest bidder partnership firm.

administrative petition_allowed Significant tender cancellation legitimate expectation administrative fairness recording reasons

Larsen And Toubro Limited v. High Parra Construction Pvt Ltd

11 Jul 2025 · Somasekhar Sundaresan

The Bombay High Court dismissed Larsen & Toubro's challenge to an MSME arbitral award for failure to deposit the statutory amount and absence of sufficient cause to condone delay in filing the challenge.

arbitration appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 Section 19 MSMED Act Section 34 Arbitration Act

Sadashiv Parbati Rupnawar v. The State of Maharashtra

11 Jul 2025 · S. M. Modak

The High Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to prove harassment of such a degree or causal link to suicide required for conviction.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 498-A IPC Section 306 IPC abetment of suicide cruelty

Municipal Staff Om Satlaj Co-op Hsg Sty Ltd v. State of Maharashtra

10 Jul 2025 · G.S. Kulkarni; Arif S. Doctor

The Bombay High Court held that a municipal authority cannot insist on an NOC from a terminated and insolvent developer to stall redevelopment projects when a new developer is appointed by the cooperative housing society.

administrative petition_allowed Significant No Objection Certificate Development Agreement Cooperative Housing Society Insolvency Proceedings

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Mumbai v. Nahar Enterprises

10 Jul 2025 · B. P. Colabawalla; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court upheld the ITAT's ruling excluding flower beds, service areas, window and cupboard projections from built-up area calculations under Section 80IB(10), dismissing the Revenue's appeal and leaving the validity of the search warrant issue undecided.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 80IB(10) deduction built-up area definition flower bed exclusion search warrant validity

Suraj Anand Shukla v. The State of Maharashtra

10 Jul 2025 · S.M. Modak

The Bombay High Court set aside the conviction under Section 385 BNSS for contempt due to procedural irregularity, holding that the learned Judge must refer the matter to the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Section 391 BNSS.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant contempt of court Section 385 BNSS Section 391 BNSS jurisdiction

Supriya Raju Mehta v. National Highway Authority of India

10 Jul 2025 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

The Bombay High Court held that NHAI cannot be treated as a third party to condone a two-year delay in challenging a statutory arbitral award under the National Highways Act, affirming the strict limitation period under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 limitation National Highways Act, 1956 statutory arbitration

Ganesh Dnyandeo Rokade & Ors. v. The Principal Secretary

10 Jul 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Gautam A. Ankhand

Employees appointed on compassionate grounds after 1st November 2005 but included in the selection list before that date are entitled to the Old Pension Scheme as per the Government Resolution dated 1st October 2024.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Old Pension Scheme New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme compassionate appointment Government Resolution