High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

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

Khanderao Bhau Desai v. Gajanan Mahadeo Kadam

30 Jun 2025 · Milind N. Jadhav
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court held that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction by overturning concurrent findings and upheld the petitioner’s deemed purchaser status for 5/8th share of the land under tenancy laws.

property appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Section 88C exemption certificate Section 32G deemed purchaser Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal revisional jurisdiction

Saurabh Sahu v. The State of Maharashtra

30 Jun 2025 · M.S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court quashed a GST registration cancellation order due to a vague show cause notice violating natural justice, allowing a fresh notice to be issued with proper particulars.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant show cause notice natural justice GST registration cancellation vagueness

Rajaram Dinkar Ketkar & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay & Ors.

27 Jun 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court upheld the landlord's absolute right to demolish a building despite tenant objections, dismissing tenants' petitions and directing eviction and demolition under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant demolition landlord rights tenant obstruction Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act

Nusli N. Wadia; Maureen N. Wadia; Rajesh Batra v. Bastion Constructions

27 Jun 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Kamal Khata
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld specific performance of a land sale agreement, holding that the purchaser's obligation to obtain ULC permission became redundant after repeal of the ULC Act, and the trustees could not terminate the contract after receiving full consideration.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant specific performance Urban Land Ceiling Act Clause 10 contractual interpretation

The State of Maharashtra v. Janardhan Ladku Bhoir & Ors.

27 Jun 2025 · S.M. Modak

The Bombay High Court dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal in an assault case under the SC and ST Act due to inconsistent evidence and lack of medical corroboration, affirming the trial court's judgment.

criminal appeal_dismissed Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act assault acquittal appellate interference

Raju Kshatriya @ Raju Nepali @ Tapan Sarveshwar Das v. The State of Maharashtra

27 Jun 2025 · Sarang V. Kotwal; Manjusha Deshpande

The High Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges due to unreliable witness evidence and failure of the prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC last seen together theory circumstantial evidence recovery of blood-stained shirt

Umesh Ramesh Marathe v. State of Maharashtra & Priti Madhav Rayate

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

The Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor who performed an emergency medical termination procedure in good faith and with patient consent, holding no offence under Section 313 IPC was made out.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 313 IPC Medical Termination of Pregnancy Consent Emergency medical procedure

Pranav Constructions Limited v. Priyadarshini Co-operative Housing Society Limited

26 Jun 2025 · Somasekhar Sundaresan

The Bombay High Court held that Section 9 jurisdiction cannot be used to enforce a discriminatory redevelopment agreement against dissenting members not party to the arbitration agreement, dismissing the petition seeking their eviction.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act equitable jurisdiction development agreement discriminatory contract

General Manager Central Railway v. PLR HC RBR JV

25 Jun 2025 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award directing payment for additional work and price variation under a railway contract, rejecting the Railways’ challenge based on contract modification formalities and Article 299 of the Constitution.

commercial_arbitration petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Article 299 Constitution of India Contract modification