High Court of Bombay
5,131 judgments
Mahendarsingh Digvijaysingh Mukne v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Rules, 1975, restricting transfer of tribal land to non-tribals for agricultural purposes, dismissing the petition challenging it under Article 14.
Jagruk Nagrik Sanghatana v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court dismissed the PIL seeking removal of telecommunication towers on health hazard and illegality grounds, holding that scientific evidence does not support health risk claims and that the Telecommunications Act, 2023 governs tower installation without requiring local development permissions.
Subhash Kisan More v. Abhayankar Jagannath Motiram
The Bombay High Court held that challenges to the inclusion of ineligible voters in the electoral roll can be entertained in an election petition if material particulars are pleaded and the irregularities materially affect the election result, and thus refused to reject the petition at the threshold.
Aryan World School v. Pune Metropolitan Regional Development Authority & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging demolition of unauthorized construction, holding that Gram Panchayat's NOC is invalid post-PMRDA establishment and illegal constructions cannot be regularized.
Mohammad Shafique Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh v. The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust
The Bombay High Court held that an employee removed for unauthorized absenteeism but not for misconduct involving moral turpitude is entitled to compassionate pension if deserving of special consideration under applicable pension regulations.
Rizvi Education Society v. The Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the amalgamation of two public trusts under Section 50A(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, holding that objections by an adverse party relating to pending litigation are not germane and procedural lapses did not vitiate the order.
Vikas Chandrakant Patil v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court granted bail to an undertrial accused held for over six years without trial, reaffirming that prolonged pre-trial detention violates the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Vahbiz Pervez Dumasia & Niloufer Pervez Dumasia v. Mr. Jahangir Jeejeebhoy
The Bombay High Court held that it has jurisdiction under Clause XVII of the Letters Patent to appoint guardians for mentally ill adults and appointed the petitioners as guardians and managers of their incapacitated father's person and estate.
Viacom 18 Media Pvt Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court remanded appeals concerning withholding tax liability on payments for satellite transponder services to Intelsat Corporation, directing lower authorities to determine the nature of services and applicability of 'royalty' under domestic law and the India-USA DTAA before adjudicating tax liability.
Laxman Dalimkar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court directed the State to pay interim compensation and expeditiously complete land acquisition proceedings after possession of petitioners' land without due process and prolonged non-payment of compensation.
Niklesh Prakash Patil v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court granted bail to an undertrial accused incarcerated for over 7 years without trial, reaffirming the constitutional right to speedy trial and that bail is the rule, not the exception.
Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax Nodal 1 Raigad Division
The Bombay High Court held that a cash credit account is not property and cannot be provisionally attached under Section 83 of the Maharashtra GST Act, quashing the attachment order against the petitioner.
Thakur Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed the rejection of a joint venture's tender bids due to improper application of tender conditions, holding that authorized signing and apostilled foreign documents suffice for compliance.
Association of Management of Homoeopathic Medical Colleges of Maharashtra v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that private homeopathic colleges were entitled to admit students on vacant seats based on CCH-prescribed eligibility during transitional years 2013-14 and 2014-15, quashing objections to such admissions and directing recognition of students' academic credentials.
Association of Management of Homoeopathic Medical Colleges of Maharashtra v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that private homeopathic colleges could admit students to BHMS courses based on eligibility prescribed by the Central Council for Homeopathy without mandating CET/NEET-UG admission during the transitional years 2013-14 and 2014-15, quashing objections and regularizing admissions of 93 students.
Ram Shankar Sinha v. Ritesh V. Patel
The Bombay High Court held that under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, a written leave and licence agreement is conclusive evidence barring contradictory evidence in eviction proceedings, and remand for trial ignoring this rule was improper.
Vitthal Thaku Jagdale v. Nitin Suresh Kadam & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that eviction of a tenant-purchaser for non-cultivation under Sections 32P and 32R of the Tenancy Act requires serious, deliberate failure and procedural fairness, setting aside a 1975 eviction order passed without proper inquiry or informed consent.
Nikiteshkumar Vijaykumar Kotangale v. The Vice-Chancellor, Mumbai University
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking reopening of revaluation for LL.M. backlog exams, holding that statutory timelines and procedures must be uniformly followed and failure to apply within prescribed periods does not warrant special relief under Articles 14 and 16.
Vanashakti v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that de-notification of protected forest land for landfill without prior Central Government approval under the Forest Conservation Act is invalid, and such procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed by invoking the General Clauses Act.
M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, City -II
The Bombay High Court allowed the appellant's appeal holding that expenses and write-offs related to a group company incurred for commercial expediency are deductible under the Income Tax Act, and the Assessing Officer cannot question the certified profit and loss account while computing book profits.