High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Sunita Bapu Jagtap v. The Chairman, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that an MSRTC employee deputed to supervise traffic who died of COVID-19 is entitled to Rs.50 lakh compensation under the relevant circulars, overruling a narrow interpretation limiting benefits to drivers and conductors.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. G.D’souza & Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone V Mumbai
The Bombay High Court quashed the Human Rights Commission's order directing compensation for road accident injuries, holding that the Commission cannot impose binding compensation without conclusive evidence of negligence and that such recommendations are subject to judicial review.
Renu Balwant Maru v. Bupendra Damjibhai Tank & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a suit for partition of immovable property is a suit for land requiring prior leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent if any property lies outside its jurisdiction, and failure to obtain such leave mandates rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd v. Bhavesh Suresh Kataria
The Bombay High Court upheld an interim injunction against a company using the mark 'Kataria Insurance', holding that Section 35 protection for bona fide use of one's name does not extend to corporate entities, and affirmed trademark infringement and passing off by the company against the registered proprietor of the 'KATARIA' mark.
Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction v. The Official Liquidator of the Swadeshi Mills Company Limited
The Bombay High Court allowed the application to stay the winding-up of Swadeshi Mills Ltd. under Section 466 of the Companies Act, holding that the proposed revival scheme met the tests of bona fide intention, commercial morality, and public interest, supported by shareholder approval and settlement of dues.
V. K. Narayanan v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed FIR and proceedings against an elderly applicant for alleged inverted flag display, holding no prima facie case and emphasizing the need for intention and proper judicial scrutiny in cognizance orders.
Shri Kishore Dewani v. The Directorate of Enforcement
The Bombay High Court quashed the process issued against the applicant under the PMLA, holding that property acquired prior to the generation of proceeds of crime cannot be treated as tainted and that the Designated Court failed to apply its mind in issuing process.
Advanced Technology Products Inc. v. Oriental Export Corporation
The Bombay High Court set aside an ex parte review order passed by an alternate judge lacking jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 5 CPC, reaffirming that review applications must be heard by the original judge if available within two months.
Asian Paints Limited v. Manju Rani Jindal & Ors.
The Bombay High Court granted permanent injunction and costs to Asian Paints Ltd. against defendants using the deceptively similar mark SUPER ASIAN PLUS, affirming trademark infringement and passing off principles under the Commercial Courts Act.
Pidilite Industries Limited v. The Union of India
The Bombay High Court quashed a GST transitional credit recovery order for violation of natural justice and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after furnishing verification reports and granting a fair hearing.
FinTree Education Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Fintree Finance Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that strict disclosure under amended Order XI CPC applies equally to intellectual property suits, allowing only limited amendments and documents created post-suit or genuinely in answer to Defendant's case, while rejecting belated production of documents already in Plaintiff's possession without reasonable cause.
Asian Paints Limited v. Manju Rani Jindal & Ors.
The Bombay High Court granted permanent injunctions and compensatory costs to Asian Paints Limited against Defendants using a deceptively similar mark SUPER ASIAN PLUS, affirming trademark infringement and passing off.
Sanjay Sanyal v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that departmental disciplinary proceedings do not constitute 'other legal proceedings' under the Atrocities Act and quashed the FIR alleging false and malicious prosecution under the Act.
University of Pune v. Shashank Balkrishna Bangale
The High Court upheld compulsory retirement of a Junior Engineer for misconduct in tender procedures and illegal gratification, limiting judicial review to procedural fairness and evidence sufficiency without reappreciation of facts.
Schaeffler India Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
The Bombay High Court held that stamp duty is chargeable only on the NCLT Mumbai order sanctioning a composite scheme of amalgamation and not on underlying transactions or separate NCLT Chennai orders, quashing the excess stamp duty demand.
Ms. Heena Qasim Phoplunkar v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition directing MPSC to include the petitioner in the merit list, holding that a clerical error in the EWS certificate's financial year, clarified by the issuing authority, does not invalidate the certificate.
Raghav Rajesh Aggarwal v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR and charge-sheet alleging rape on false promise of marriage where the relationship was consensual and the complainant was married, holding no offence was made out under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.
Municipal Corporation, Pune v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that candidates selected as Assistant Teachers on an unaided basis cannot be validly appointed as Shikshan Sevaks on honorarium, quashing such appointment orders and directing fresh appointments with pay scale.
Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. M/s. Bombay Gymkhana Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that in absence of an express limitation period under the ESI Act, orders imposing damages under Section 85-B must be passed within a reasonable period of five years, and set aside a damages order passed after fourteen years as time-barred.
Jitendra Gorakh Megh v. Gorakh Govind Megh
The Bombay High Court held that Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 cannot be misused as a litigation tactic to challenge an adversary's legal capacity without proper proof of mental illness and dismissed the Interim Application accordingly.