High Court of Bombay

3,981 judgments

Year:

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

Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala & Ors. v. Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad Poddar & Ors.

02 Jul 2025 · Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court dismissed the application for condonation of a 645-day delay in filing a review petition, holding that vague and unsupported reasons do not constitute sufficient cause under the Limitation Act.

civil petition_dismissed condonation of delay review petition Limitation Act 1963 sufficient cause

Lallubhai Amichand Limited v. Sunil Jagmohandas Shah

01 Jul 2025 · B. P. Colabawalla; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla

The Bombay High Court vacated an ex-parte order against a family company director, affirming the binding nature of a family arrangement governing management rights and restraining unlawful ouster attempts.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant family company quasi-partnership fiduciary duty ex-parte order

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Atul Dattaray Wadhane

01 Jul 2025 · Shivkumar Dige

The Bombay High Court held the bus driver solely negligent in a motor accident, enhanced compensation for the claimant's 100% functional disability including future medical expenses with interest, and dismissed the insurer's appeal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim negligence compensation enhancement permanent disability

Sunil Laxman Ghode v. The State of Maharashtra

30 Jun 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Rajesh S. Patil · 2025:BHC-AS:30459-DB

The Bombay High Court modified the petitioner’s categorization under the 2010 premature release Guidelines from Category 4(d) to 3(b), directing his immediate release after serving over 23 years for a murder arising out of family prestige.

criminal petition_allowed Significant premature release 14 Year Rule life imprisonment category 3(b)

Chandan Suraj Jaiswar v. State of Maharashtra

30 Jun 2025 · Madhav J. Jamdar

The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court's rejection of an application to summon the victim and her husband as accused for extortion under Section 319 Cr.P.C., holding that the offences are distinct and not triable together.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 319 CrPC Section 223 CrPC extortion rape

Sunil Laxman Ghode v. The State of Maharashtra

30 Jun 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Rajesh S. Patil

The Bombay High Court reclassified a life convict from Category 4(d) to 3(b) under the 2010 Guidelines for premature release, directing his immediate release after over 23 years served.

criminal petition_allowed Significant premature release 14 Year Rule life imprisonment murder