High Court of Bombay

4,236 judgments

Year:

Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. v. Maha Active Engineers India Pvt. Ltd.

30 Apr 2025 · A.S. Chandurkar; Rajesh Patil

The Bombay High Court partly allowed ABL's appeal modifying the interim relief granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing the need for expedition, prima facie case, and reasoned quantum in granting such relief.

commercial_arbitration appeal_allowed Significant Section 9 Arbitration Act interim relief prima facie case balance of convenience

Anilkumar Chhotelal Yadav & Nagendrakumar Lalkrishor Kanojiya v. State of Maharashtra

29 Apr 2025 · Revati Mohite Dere; Dr. Neela Gokhale

The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of two appellants for murder and robbery based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence including last seen theory and corroborative recoveries.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen theory Section 302 IPC Section 392 IPC

Umabai Dattu Bhoir and Ors. v. Malati Kisan Bhagt and Ors.

29 Apr 2025 · Gauri Godse

The Civil Court has jurisdiction to try suits for declaration of title despite existence of heirship certificates under the Bombay Regulation and Indian Succession Act, and a plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold on that ground.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant heirship certificate Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 Indian Succession Act, 1925 Civil Court jurisdiction

N.M.V. High School and College & Ors. v. Shri Bharat Dagadu Kshirsagar & Ors.

29 Apr 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court quashed an unreasoned administrative order rejecting a teacher's full-time appointment approval and directed retrospective approval with salary and pension arrears.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant administrative approval reasoned order application of mind resolution

UTO Nederland B. V. v. Tilaknagar Industries Ltd.

28 Apr 2025 · Alok Aradhe, CJ; M. S. Karnik, J; Shyam C. Chandak, J
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The court held that an order on a temporary injunction application is a discretionary order, not a prima facie adjudication, and appellate interference is limited to cases of arbitrary or perverse exercise of discretion.

civil other Significant temporary injunction prima facie adjudication discretionary order scope of appeal

Vincy Cajetan Noronha & Ors. v. Steffi Genovevo Fernandes

28 Apr 2025 · R.I. Chagla

The Bombay High Court appointed the Respondent as legal guardian of minor Master Yohan, prioritizing the child's welfare and emotional bonds over financial capacity or biological ties.

family petition_allowed Significant Guardianship Custody Welfare of child Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

Shahna Garg Advani v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

28 Apr 2025 · Sarang V. Kotwal; S. M. Modak

The Bombay High Court dismissed the mother's habeas corpus petition for custody of her 10-year-old son, holding that the father is the natural guardian and custody disputes require detailed inquiry under guardianship laws with the child's welfare as paramount.

family petition_dismissed Significant habeas corpus child custody natural guardian Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956

Sahil Raju Gilani v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

28 Apr 2025 · Sarang V. Kotwal; S. M. Modak

The Bombay High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of a minor girl, holding that custody disputes must be resolved under the Guardians and Wards Act with the child's welfare as paramount.

family petition_dismissed Significant habeas corpus child custody Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 welfare of the child

Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. The Union of India & Ors.

25 Apr 2025 · B. P. Colabawalla; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla

The Bombay High Court held that a manufacturer-exporter is entitled to claim both input side drawback and output side rebate on exported goods without it constituting double benefit, overruling the Department's recovery demand.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Cenvat credit drawback rebate Rule 18 Central Excise Rules 2002

Sasmita Investments Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority

25 Apr 2025 · B. P. Colabawalla; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla

Civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging or seeking declaration of abrogation of compulsory purchase orders under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as barred by Sections 269-UN and 293.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Chapter XX-C Compulsory Purchase Order Section 269-UD

M/s. Manidhari Realtors Private Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

25 Apr 2025 · M. S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that in NHAI land acquisitions, interest on delayed compensation must be paid from the date possession is taken, directing payment of interest at 9% per annum from 05.12.2019 until actual payment.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition possession date interest on compensation Section 80 of 2013 Act

Usha Ravi v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.

25 Apr 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

Deputation allowance paid during deputation does not form part of pensionable pay; pension must be fixed on substantive pay drawn in the parent bank excluding deputation allowance.

service_law petition_dismissed Significant deputation allowance pension fixation parent bank loanee bank

Jaswant Navnitlal Mistry v. Municipal Commissioner

25 Apr 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court held that an employee absorbed into a municipal corporation with conditions preserving past service is entitled to pension benefits under the Old Pension Scheme, rejecting the corporation’s later denial of such rights.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Absorption of service Old Pension Scheme Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982 Defined Contributory Pension Scheme

Vasantrao Shamrao Deshmukh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

25 Apr 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court held that wholly dependent parents of a deceased unmarried government servant are entitled to family pension under the expanded definition in the 2015 Government Resolution, applying it retrospectively to protect their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.

administrative petition_allowed Significant family pension dependent parents Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 Government Resolution 2015

Shri Nathyaba Jagannath Sonwalkar v. The State of Maharashtra

25 Apr 2025 · M. S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation remain unfulfilled for over five years, and accordingly allowed the petitioner’s writ declaring lapse and quashing the rejection of release of land.

property petition_allowed Significant land acquisition Section 24(2) 2013 Act Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act possession

Atish Arun Chandne v. Commissioner of Police, Pune City

25 Apr 2025 · Sarang V. Kotwal; S. M. Modak

The Bombay High Court upheld a preventive detention order against a petitioner who violated an existing externment order and engaged in dangerous activities, affirming that concurrent preventive actions are permissible when justified by public order concerns.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant preventive detention externment order Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 public order

Yogendra Lahu Bhoir v. Prema Yogendra Bhoir

25 Apr 2025 · Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ; Gautam A. Ankhand, J.
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal and granted divorce on grounds of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown, setting aside the Family Court's dismissal of the divorce petition.

family appeal_allowed Significant divorce cruelty Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 mental cruelty

Eknath Krishna Kadam v. The State of Maharashtra

24 Apr 2025 · Revati Mohite Dere; Dr. Neela Gokhale

The High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder and robbery based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence including last seen theory and failure to explain whereabouts under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen theory Section 302 IPC Section 397 IPC

Ananda Vishnu Salvi v. The Chief Officer

24 Apr 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court held that a government servant with 9 years and 9 months service is entitled to pension by rounding off service under Rule 110(3) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, and granted pension with interest on delayed payments.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules 1982 qualifying service for pension Rule 110(3) pension calculation daily wager permanency

Shaikh Mohammad Azahar v. Ishwar Pralhad Dham

24 Apr 2025 · N. J. Jamadar

The Bombay High Court held that Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC applies to revocation proceedings under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, allowing courts to reject sham revocation applications at the threshold.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Probate Revocation of Probate Section 263 Indian Succession Act Order VII Rule 11 CPC