High Court of Bombay

4,236 judgments

Year:

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

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd v. State of Maharashtra

24 Apr 2025 · G. S. Kulkarni; Aarti Sathe

The Bombay High Court held that the GST Appellate Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction to grant interim relief including stay of recovery, and directed the petitioner to seek such relief before the Tribunal instead of the High Court.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal interim orders stay of recovery appellate jurisdiction

National Commodity Clearing Ltd. v. Dita Comtrade Limited

23 Apr 2025 · Abhay Ahuja, J.

The Bombay High Court held that failure to comply with a conditional deposit order under Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b) CPC entitles the plaintiff to immediate ex-parte decree, precluding the defendant from further contesting the suit.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XXXVII CPC summary suit conditional leave to defend non-deposit certificate

Cyril Ribeiro v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

23 Apr 2025 · G. S. Kulkarni; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla

The court held that a retired government employee against whom an eviction order was passed before 11th June 1996 is not a deemed tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and ordered possession of the requisitioned flat to be handed over to the petitioner.

property appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Land Requisition Act, 1948 Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 deemed tenancy eviction order

Vivek Madhavlal Pittie v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

23 Apr 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court held that termination of a defaulting developer under the Slums Act and appointment of new developers under the Amnesty Scheme does not extinguish the landowner’s rights, and new developers must honor existing contractual obligations or negotiate terms, with notice and hearing to the landowner being mandatory.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Slum Rehabilitation Scheme Amnesty Scheme Section 13(2) Maharashtra Slums Act landowner rights

Saiyyad Musaddik Vahiduddin Kadri v. The State of Maharashtra

23 Apr 2025 · Revati Mohite Dere; Neela Gokhale

The Bombay High Court acquitted the appellant of murder due to the prosecution's failure to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and prove the identity of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence Section 302 IPC Section 106 Evidence Act identity of deceased

Rupesh Tukaram Kondhalkar v. The State of Maharashtra

23 Apr 2025 · Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court granted bail to the accused in a POCSO sexual assault case, holding that a positive DNA report is opinion evidence requiring proof at trial and that prolonged pre-trial detention without trial commencement justifies bail despite statutory presumptions.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail DNA evidence POCSO Act Section 29 POCSO

M/s. Star Time Communication (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax

22 Apr 2025 · M. S. Karnik; Chief Justice

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, holding that the infrastructure fee payable was 5% of actual advertising receipts as per the contract, not 5% of gross advertising bills.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 260A infrastructure fee advertising receipts

Tata Capital Limited v. Vijay Devij Aiya & Anr

22 Apr 2025 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of an arbitration agreement with a unilateral termination clause and appointed an independent arbitrator, holding that enforcement under SARFAESI Act does not preclude arbitration.

commercial_arbitration appeal_allowed Significant arbitration agreement Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act mutuality in arbitration unilateral appointment of arbitrator

Adesh Shivaji Narke v. Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan & Ors.

22 Apr 2025 · Amit Borkar, J.

The High Court held that the District Judge as persona designata lacks jurisdiction to amend the trust scheme absent express power, and the petitioner must seek modification under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant persona designata public trust scheme trustee appointment modification of scheme

Umesh Raghunath Bamane v. State of Maharashtra

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

The Bombay High Court directed retrospective sanction and approval of a part-time librarian post held by a disabled employee since 1999, ordered its upgrade to full-time status, and granted all consequential monetary and pension benefits.

administrative petition_allowed Significant retrospective regularization part-time librarian grant-in-aid disability

Yogesh Waman Gaikwad v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

22 Apr 2025 · Alok Aradhe, CJ; M. S. Karnik, J.

The Bombay High Court held that a minor inadvertent typographical error in land survey details does not justify rejection of a petrol pump dealership application under IOCL guidelines and quashed the rejection order.

administrative petition_allowed Significant petrol pump dealership Indian Oil Corporation Limited dealer selection guidelines non-rectifiable deficiency

Prithvi Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

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

The Bombay High Court quashed a reopening notice issued after four years under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for lack of failure to disclose material facts and held that reassessment on issues already examined amounts to impermissible change of opinion.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 148 Income Tax Act Reopening of assessment Failure to disclose material facts Change of opinion

Dev Marketing v. The Assessment Unit

21 Apr 2025 · M. S. SONAK; JITENDRA JAIN

The Bombay High Court set aside an income tax assessment order for violation of natural justice by not granting a requested personal hearing and remanded the matter for fresh assessment with hearing and draft order.

tax appeal_allowed Significant principles of natural justice income tax assessment personal hearing Section 143(3) Income Tax Act

Sai Kiran Clearing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

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

The Bombay High Court set aside a reassessment order passed before considering the assessee’s timely response, holding it violated natural justice and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

tax appeal_allowed Significant natural justice reassessment order Income Tax Act Section 148

Manoj Gopal Mahale; Ratilal Natthu Ahire; Shri Vinod Ramchandra Kokani v. State of Maharashtra

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

The Bombay High Court held that teachers appointed on the basis of CTET cannot be terminated solely due to cancellation of their earlier TET results in a scam and ordered their reinstatement with back wages.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant CTET TET scam appointment termination reinstatement

XYZ v. State of Maharashtra

19 Apr 2025 · N.J. Jamadar

The Bombay High Court held that a major victim of sexual exploitation cannot be detained in a protective home against her will without material justification, affirming the primacy of fundamental rights over statutory detention under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 protective home detention victim rights fundamental rights

Asif Fazal Khan v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

17 Apr 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional bar on civil suits challenging BMC demolition notices, directed demolition of illegal construction, and censured BMC officers for misconduct.

administrative petition_allowed Significant illegal construction Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Section 351 BMC Act Section 515A BMC Act

Snehdeep Krida Mandal v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Ors.

17 Apr 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Kamal Khata
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court quashed unauthorized construction on land reserved as open playground space, directed demolition, censured municipal authorities for dereliction, and upheld statutory bars on civil court jurisdiction over demolition notices.

administrative petition_allowed Significant illegal construction open space reservation DCPR 2034 MHADA

Madhukar Aawba Hegade v. State of Maharashtra

17 Apr 2025 · Sarang V. Kotwal; S. M. Modak · 2023 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 130

The Bombay High Court quashed a preventive detention order under the MPDA Act for lack of proper subjective satisfaction and failure to demonstrate ineffectiveness of normal law enforcement.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Preventive Detention Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act Bootlegger Dangerous Person