High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

Ravikiran Vasant Gore v. M/s. Sainath Enterprises Partnership Firm & Ors.

18 Mar 2026 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging the appellate court’s order lifting the temporary injunction restraining development of disputed property, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case and balance of convenience for interim relief.

civil petition_dismissed Significant temporary injunction gift deed revocation of will property dispute

Supriya Chokhara v. Union of India

01 Mar 2026 · G. S. Kulkarni; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla

The Bombay High Court held that Customs authorities lack jurisdiction to restrict transfer of property owned by a third party based on investigation against her husband, and such ownership disputes must be adjudicated by civil courts.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Customs Act jurisdiction benami property prohibition of benami transactions property ownership dispute

Asha Dhondiram Shinde v. Union of India

27 Feb 2026 · R.I. Chagla; Advait M. Sethna

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition of a visually impaired candidate, directing reconsideration of her candidature with reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act, quashing her rejection based on non-recognition of her educational qualification equivalence.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant reasonable accommodation Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 equivalence of educational qualification disability rights

AIC246 AG & Co. KG v. The Patent Office of India

27 Feb 2026 · Arif S. Doctor

The Bombay High Court held that a patent applicant must be granted a mandatory hearing under Section 14 before refusal under Section 25(1), affirming the distinct and independent nature of examination and opposition proceedings under the Patents Act.

intellectual_property appeal_allowed Significant Patents Act, 1970 Section 14 hearing Section 15 order Section 25(1) pre-grant opposition

GTL Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

27 Feb 2026 · SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ; GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR against GTL Limited for alleged loan diversion, holding that absent prima facie evidence of fraud or identified accused, the investigation cannot proceed.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC economic offences cheating under IPC

GTL Infrastructure Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

27 Feb 2026 · Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ; Gautam A. Ankhand, J

The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR against GTL Infrastructure Limited for lack of prima facie evidence of fraud or criminal misconduct, emphasizing the limits on investigative powers and protection of bona fide commercial decisions.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Prevention of Corruption Act section 17A forensic audit corporate debt restructuring

Parshuram Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra

26 Feb 2026 · Manish Pitale; Shreeram V. Shirsat

The Bombay High Court held that CIDCO cannot mandate probate of will under its policy when the law does not require it, quashing the impugned condition and directing allotment of developed plots without probate.

administrative petition_allowed Significant probate of will Indian Succession Act 1925 CIDCO 12.5% scheme administrative policy

Mohan Gangaram Narang v. City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd

26 Feb 2026 · N. J. Jamadar
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition directing a decree on admission to declare forged conveyance deeds void, emphasizing the Court's discretionary power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to grant speedy relief on clear admissions.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XII Rule 6 CPC judgment on admission decree on admission forgery

Gerald Michael Misquitta v. State of Maharashtra

25 Feb 2026 · Neela Gokhale
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The High Court held that all co-owners must be given a fair opportunity of hearing before the Competent Authority grants a unilateral deemed conveyance certificate under MOFA, and quashed the impugned order and deed for failure to do so.

property appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 Unilateral Deemed Conveyance Competent Authority Natural Justice

Pradip Prakash Baikar v. State of Maharashtra

25 Feb 2026 · R.M. Joshi

The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a man for sexual assault on a minor under the POCSO Act, emphasizing the weight of the victim's testimony and the applicability of statutory presumptions despite minor discrepancies and absence of definitive medical injuries.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant POCSO Act sexual assault minor victim testimony medical evidence

Sau. Poonam Bharat Kudale v. The State of Maharashtra

25 Feb 2026 · N. J. Jamadar

The High Court restored the removal of Panchayat members for willful misconduct in passing an illegal resolution to usurp Sarpanch's authority, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory procedure and natural justice.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959 Section 39(1) misconduct removal of elected representative

Abuzar Ayyaz Tamboli v. The State of Maharashtra

25 Feb 2026 · R.M. Joshi

The Bombay High Court upheld conviction under Section 326-A IPC for acid attack based on victim’s testimony and chemical evidence, but set aside POCSO Act convictions due to absence of sexual assault.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant acid attack Section 326-A IPC hostile witness POCSO Act applicability

Mukesh Mahadev Musahar v. The State of Maharashtra

25 Feb 2026 · Manish Pitale; Shreeram V. Shirsat
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The High Court acquitted appellants convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant circumstantial evidence last seen theory recovery of incriminating articles voluntariness of statement

Jolly Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Surendra Nath Jolly

24 Feb 2026 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award dismissing specific performance of a land transfer MOU held to be terminated due to an injunction rendering performance impossible, affirming the contract as contingent and the termination valid.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Memorandum of Understanding Contingent contract Specific performance

Anirudha Manohar Khopade and others v. Union of India and others

24 Feb 2026 · Manish Pitale; Shreeram V. Shirsat

Section 94 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 does not apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956, and co-owners cannot compel acquisition of entire buildings under that provision.

property petition_dismissed Significant Section 94 Act of 2013 National Highways Act, 1956 land acquisition compensation

Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ijimima – Imitation Jewellery Market Co-operative Society

24 Feb 2026 · Amit Borkar, J.
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld the Competent Authority's order granting unilateral deemed conveyance under MOFA, holding that promoters must convey full title notwithstanding contractual leasehold clauses and procedural objections.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 Section 11 MOFA unilateral deemed conveyance promoter obligation

Sunita Bapu Jagtap v. The Chairman, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.

24 Feb 2026 · M.S. Karnik; S. M. Modak
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that an MSRTC employee deputed to supervise traffic who died of COVID-19 is entitled to Rs.50 lakh compensation under the relevant circulars, overruling a narrow interpretation limiting benefits to drivers and conductors.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant COVID-19 compensation ex-gratia payment MSRTC Government Resolution

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. G.D’souza & Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone V Mumbai

23 Feb 2026 · Bharati Dangre; Manjusha Deshpande

The Bombay High Court quashed the Human Rights Commission's order directing compensation for road accident injuries, holding that the Commission cannot impose binding compensation without conclusive evidence of negligence and that such recommendations are subject to judicial review.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Human Rights Commission Compensation Negligence Violation of Human Rights

Renu Balwant Maru v. Bupendra Damjibhai Tank & Ors.

23 Feb 2026 · Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that a suit for partition of immovable property is a suit for land requiring prior leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent if any property lies outside its jurisdiction, and failure to obtain such leave mandates rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Suit for partition Suit for land Clause XII Letters Patent Order VII Rule 11 CPC

Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd v. Bhavesh Suresh Kataria

23 Feb 2026 · Bharati Dangre; R.N. Laddha

The Bombay High Court upheld an interim injunction against a company using the mark 'Kataria Insurance', holding that Section 35 protection for bona fide use of one's name does not extend to corporate entities, and affirmed trademark infringement and passing off by the company against the registered proprietor of the 'KATARIA' mark.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Trademark infringement Passing off Section 35 Trade Marks Act Bona fide use