High Court of Bombay

3,981 judgments

Year:

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

Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction v. The Official Liquidator of the Swadeshi Mills Company Limited

23 Feb 2026 · Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court allowed the application to stay the winding-up of Swadeshi Mills Ltd. under Section 466 of the Companies Act, holding that the proposed revival scheme met the tests of bona fide intention, commercial morality, and public interest, supported by shareholder approval and settlement of dues.

corporate appeal_allowed Significant Section 466 Companies Act winding-up revival of company secured creditor

V. K. Narayanan v. The State of Maharashtra

23 Feb 2026 · Ashwin D. Bhobe · 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court quashed FIR and proceedings against an elderly applicant for alleged inverted flag display, holding no prima facie case and emphasizing the need for intention and proper judicial scrutiny in cognizance orders.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act Section 2(4)(l) quashing of FIR mens rea

Shri Kishore Dewani v. The Directorate of Enforcement

23 Feb 2026 · Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court quashed the process issued against the applicant under the PMLA, holding that property acquired prior to the generation of proceeds of crime cannot be treated as tainted and that the Designated Court failed to apply its mind in issuing process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Section 3 PMLA proceeds of crime scheduled offence

Advanced Technology Products Inc. v. Oriental Export Corporation

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

The Bombay High Court set aside an ex parte review order passed by an alternate judge lacking jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 5 CPC, reaffirming that review applications must be heard by the original judge if available within two months.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XLVII Rule 5 CPC Review application jurisdiction Pre-institution mediation Commercial Courts Act 2015 Section 12A

Asian Paints Limited v. Manju Rani Jindal & Ors.

20 Feb 2026 · Arif S. Doctor

The Bombay High Court granted permanent injunction and costs to Asian Paints Ltd. against defendants using the deceptively similar mark SUPER ASIAN PLUS, affirming trademark infringement and passing off principles under the Commercial Courts Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trade mark infringement passing off deceptive similarity permanent injunction

Pidilite Industries Limited v. The Union of India

20 Feb 2026 · G. S. Kulkarni; Aarti Sathe
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

The Bombay High Court quashed a GST transitional credit recovery order for violation of natural justice and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after furnishing verification reports and granting a fair hearing.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant natural justice transitional input tax credit CGST Act verification reports

FinTree Education Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Fintree Finance Pvt. Ltd.

20 Feb 2026 · ARIF S. DOCTOR

The Bombay High Court held that strict disclosure under amended Order XI CPC applies equally to intellectual property suits, allowing only limited amendments and documents created post-suit or genuinely in answer to Defendant's case, while rejecting belated production of documents already in Plaintiff's possession without reasonable cause.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XI Rule 1 CPC Commercial Courts Act 2015 disclosure regime amendment of plaint

Asian Paints Limited v. Manju Rani Jindal & Ors.

20 Feb 2026 · ARIF S. DOCTOR

The Bombay High Court granted permanent injunctions and compensatory costs to Asian Paints Limited against Defendants using a deceptively similar mark SUPER ASIAN PLUS, affirming trademark infringement and passing off.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trade mark infringement passing off deceptive similarity permanent injunction

Sanjay Sanyal v. The State of Maharashtra

20 Feb 2026 · Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court held that departmental disciplinary proceedings do not constitute 'other legal proceedings' under the Atrocities Act and quashed the FIR alleging false and malicious prosecution under the Act.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(1)(viii) Section 3(1)(p) departmental proceedings

University of Pune v. Shashank Balkrishna Bangale

18 Feb 2026 · Amit Borkar, J.

The High Court upheld compulsory retirement of a Junior Engineer for misconduct in tender procedures and illegal gratification, limiting judicial review to procedural fairness and evidence sufficiency without reappreciation of facts.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant departmental enquiry disciplinary proceedings compulsory retirement judicial review