High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

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

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