High Court of Bombay

4,236 judgments

Year:

Shivamma Shankar Wale v. Ramesh Virpakshappa Wale

17 Apr 2025 · Gauri Godse, J.

The High Court restored the guardianship of a lunatic husband to his wife by upholding the validity of an unchallenged death certificate and rejecting unsubstantiated allegations of forgery and misappropriation.

civil appeal_allowed Significant guardianship Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 Mental Health Act, 1987 death certificate

Ms Samruddhi Sundeep Amberkar v. Controller of Examination of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences

17 Apr 2025 · A. S. Chandurkar; M. M. Sathaye

The Bombay High Court held that a student who voluntarily appears in a supplementary exam must be treated as a repeater under university rules and refused to direct the university to treat such an exam as a first attempt.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Supplementary Examination Repeater Student Writ Petition Article 226

Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation v. The Union of India

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

The Bombay High Court permitted Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation to execute a service road project within a mangrove buffer zone after statutory environmental clearances, emphasizing public interest and adherence to environmental safeguards.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2011 mangrove buffer zone environmental clearance public trust doctrine

Vishrut Enterprises Pvt Ltd v. Prakash Ganpat Thakur

17 Apr 2025 · N. J. Jamadar

The Bombay High Court upheld the executing court's order allowing non-parties claiming legal heirship to resist execution of a specific performance decree under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC, emphasizing the executing court's jurisdiction to adjudicate such resistance.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order XXI Rule 97 Execution of decree Resistance to execution Legal heirship certificate

A Schulman Inc Ltd v. Odyssey Tours And Travels

17 Apr 2025 · N. J. Jamadar

The Bombay High Court held that Indian courts have jurisdiction over foreign defendants if a part of the cause of action arises within their territory under Section 20(c) CPC, and mere appearance under protest does not amount to submission to jurisdiction.

civil petition_dismissed Significant jurisdiction foreign defendant Section 20(c) CPC submission to jurisdiction

Jayashri Amardeep Shinde v. MAHATRANSCO

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

The Bombay High Court set aside the termination of a disabled employee based on unproven misrepresentation and an anonymous complaint, reinstating her with reduced punishment and partial back-wages.

labor appeal_allowed Significant termination of service departmental inquiry disability rights experience certificate

Elite Housing LLP v. The Spectrum CHS Ltd

16 Apr 2025 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

The court granted interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act directing possession of disputed flats for redevelopment despite ongoing family disputes, balancing collective redevelopment interests with individual rights.

civil petition_allowed Significant Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Development Agreement Cooperative Housing Society Redevelopment

Prakash Narayan Dhobale v. State of Maharashtra

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

The Bombay High Court held that employees cannot be penalized for employer's erroneous exemption from mandatory departmental exams discovered post-retirement, and allowed their writ petitions restoring promotions and benefits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Departmental Professional Examination Exemption Promotion Superannuation

Kaushik Rameshchandra Thakkar v. State of Maharashtra

16 Apr 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that despite procedural irregularities in arrest and delayed production, the petitioner’s judicial remand was valid, rendering the writ of habeas corpus not maintainable and dismissing the petition.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant illegal arrest Article 22 Constitution production before Magistrate 24-hour rule

Prakash Narayan Dhobale v. State of Maharashtra

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

The Bombay High Court held that employees cannot be penalized for administrative errors granting exemption from mandatory departmental exams discovered post-retirement, and restored their promotions and benefits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant departmental professional examination exemption promotion superannuation

Gaurav Arjun Patil v. State of Maharashtra

15 Apr 2025 · Milind N. Jadhav
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a young apprentice accused under the Official Secrets Act, finding he was honey-trapped via social media and lacked mens rea, emphasizing the need to balance national security with individual liberty at the bail stage.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Official Secrets Act, 1923 Section 439 CrPC bail honey trap

Mohd. Ali Jaan Mohd Shaikh & Pranay Manohar Rane v. The State of Maharashtra & Central Bureau of Investigation

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

The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of appellants for murder based on reliable injured eyewitness testimony, lawful weapon recovery, and admissible forensic evidence despite delay in identification parade.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant injured eyewitness testimony Test Identification Parade Section 27 Indian Evidence Act Section 293 CrPC

Shevanti Dadoba Nashte; Shailaja Pravin Nashte v. Bhikaji Vasudeo Lad through L.R.s - Sumitra Bhikaji Lad; Umesh Bhikaji Lad; Sanjay Bhikaji Lad; Ramesh Bhikaji Lad; Sanyukt Maharashtra Co.op. HSG; Sandeep Ramesh Solanki; Sagar Ramesh Solanki; Suvarna Ram

15 Apr 2025 · M.M. Sathaye
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that rejection of impleadment does not bar leave to file appeal and such leave can be granted without notice to the opposing party if the applicant is prejudicially affected by the decree.

civil appeal_allowed Significant leave to file appeal impleadment Order I Rule 10 CPC Section 115 CPC

Pramod Ramvilas Malpani v. Sham Tuljaram Pardeshi

15 Apr 2025 · Madhav J. Jamdar
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay Rent Act bars further appeals beyond the first appeal in obstructionist proceedings, and tenancy rights must be proved with genuine documents; thus, the Civil Revision Application challenging the appellate order was dismissed.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Bombay Rent Act Maharashtra Rent Control Act execution proceedings obstructionist application

National Federation of Atomic Energy Employees v. Union of India

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

The Bombay High Court held that government service rules cannot restrict the democratic rights of registered trade union members to contest elections or limit tenure, affirming union autonomy under the Trade Unions Act and Article 19(1)(c).

labor petition_allowed Significant Trade Unions Act, 1926 Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 Rule 15(1)(c) freedom of association

Suvarna Appasaheb Kshirsagar v. The State of Maharashtra

15 Apr 2025 · Amit Borkar, J.

The High Court held that Devasthan Inam lands remain inalienable religious trust property protected under Section 8(3) of the 1863 Act, and administrative deletion of revenue entries cannot confer ownership or permit alienation.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant Devasthan Inam land Section 8(3) Exemptions from Land Revenue Act 1863 land revenue exemption Vahiwatdar rights

Flagship Infrastructure Ltd. v. The Competent Authority & Ors.

15 Apr 2025 · Amit Borkar, J.

The Bombay High Court held that MOFA's mandatory four-month conveyance timeline prevails over MRTP Act permissions granting extended project completion time, upholding deemed conveyance to flat purchasers despite developer's objections.

property appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act MOFA Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act MRTP Act

Technova Imaging Systems Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

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

The Bombay High Court held that in amalgamation cases where no carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation under Section 72A is claimed, the amalgamated company can adjust written down value of assets based on depreciation actually allowed without Central Government approval.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 72A written down value unabsorbed depreciation

Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. & Anr. v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. & Ors.

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

The Bombay High Court upheld MAHAGENCO's rejection of the petitioner's bid and forfeiture of EMD, holding that BPSCPL is a Government entity or independent power producer whose blacklisting disqualified the petitioner under the tender terms.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Government entity Independent power producer Blacklisting Debarment

Ramchandra Jakappa Nandavadekar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

09 Apr 2025 · A.S. Chandurkar; M. M. Sathaye

The High Court held that members cannot be removed from a cooperative society's voters list without following statutory procedure, allowing excluded members to vote without stalling ongoing elections.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 membership cessation voters list bye-laws breach