High Court of Bombay
4,043 judgments
Kiran Ramesh Shinde v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld routine administrative transfers of judicial employees before completion of tenure, rejecting claims of illegality and punitive motive, and affirmed the distinct transfer rules applicable to judicial service.
Sujal Mangala Birwadkar v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that a petitioner born to an upper caste father and Scheduled Caste mother must prove social and educational disadvantages due to the mother's caste to claim Scheduled Caste status, and dismissed the petition for lack of such evidence.
Ashish Balaji Sawant v. Jalindar Tukaram Khaire & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging invalidation of a caste certificate obtained by forged documents, holding that fraudulent claims undermine constitutional affirmative action and warrant dismissal with exemplary costs.
Avinash Dominic Ghosal v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that unauthorized constructions without prior permission under the MRTP Act cannot be regularized post facto and directed demolition and prosecution of illegal structures, emphasizing strict enforcement of planning laws.
NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court struck down Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of DCPR 2034 permitting slum rehabilitation on reserved public open spaces as unconstitutional, emphasizing the State's duty to preserve open spaces under Articles 14 and 21 and the public trust doctrine.
Ramchandra @ Ram Mewalal Yadav v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and life sentences of three accused for murder based on credible eyewitness and dying declaration evidence corroborated by medical and forensic findings despite minor contradictions and procedural delays.
Mangal Credit And Fincorp Limited v. GBL Chemical Limited & Ors
The Bombay High Court held that allegations of fraud do not preclude arbitration at the Section 11 stage and appointed an arbitrator, leaving the question of arbitrability of fraud to the arbitral tribunal.
Samruddhi Industries Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited
The Bombay High Court held that an arbitration clause limited to disputes below the DRT's pecuniary jurisdiction does not cover a borrower's claim challenging penal interest charges exceeding that limit, and thus refused to appoint an arbitrator.
Nishit Patel v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against the petitioner for abetment of suicide, holding that mere financial transactions without proximate instigation do not constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC.
M B Sugars & Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v. Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council
The Bombay High Court held that failure of the MSME Facilitation Council to initiate conciliation or appoint an arbitrator empowers the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to directly appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute.
Shachindra Kamala Prasad Shukla v. Priya Shachindra Shukla
The Bombay High Court upheld the Family Court’s interim maintenance order of Rs.15,000 per month to the wife, emphasizing full income disclosure and the wife’s entitlement despite her employment.
Feroz Talukdar Khan v. The Municipal Commissioner Thane
The Bombay High Court held that unauthorized constructions without municipal approval cannot be regularized and must be demolished, rejecting pleas for regularization and emphasizing strict enforcement of municipal laws.
Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Private Limited
The Bombay High Court allowed BCCI's challenge to arbitral awards in IPL franchise disputes, holding that the awards were patently illegal and contrary to contract terms, and emphasized strict compliance with contractual obligations and arbitration procedures.
M/s. Bob Capital Markets Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
The High Court held that providing free dining facilities and self-service vending machines for employees without any commercial trade does not attract licensing requirements under Section 394 of the MMC Act and quashed the criminal process issued against the applicant.
Jyoti C. Raheja and others v. Aasia Properties Development Ltd. and others
The High Court upheld the CLB's findings on shareholding date and pre-emption rights, set aside equitable relief for board nomination, and clarified the scope of jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Jyoti C. Raheja and others v. Aasia Properties Development Ltd. and others
The Bombay High Court upheld the CLB's findings on shareholding dates and right of pre-emption, rejected claims of record manipulation and oppression, and set aside the CLB's order allowing Aasia Properties to nominate a director, emphasizing strict statutory interpretation and jurisdictional limits.
Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India Pvt Ltd v. The Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that supplies by an Indian company to its foreign group companies qualify as export of services under GST and the petitioner is entitled to refund of unutilized ITC, rejecting the department's agency-based denial.
Abhay Damodar Kanhere v. Morya Infraconstruct Pvt. Ltd
The Bombay High Court held that disputes under a sale agreement containing an arbitration clause are arbitrable despite RERA jurisdiction, and jurisdictional issues must be decided by the arbitral tribunal, not at the Section 11 stage.
Sashidhar Jagdishan v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that under Section 223 of B.N.S.S., notice to the accused must be issued only after recording verification of the complainant and witnesses, quashing the Magistrate's premature notice issuance.
M/s Global Impex v. M/s Sipping Tea Cinemas LLP
The Bombay High Court granted interim injunctions under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to protect the petitioner’s assigned rights in the movie Charak pending arbitration, holding the Agreement to be a present assignment and the petitioner ready to perform.