High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

Anjali Anand Khare v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

27 Feb 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court held that a recruitment ban without a specific departmental order does not apply to university employees, entitling the petitioner to pension benefits from the State Government.

labor petition_allowed Significant Government Resolution 4.9.1986 recruitment ban regularization of service pension entitlement

Gayatri Pandurang Bhamre v. Gram Vikas Mandal

26 Feb 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging rejection of teacher appointment approval due to non-compliance with mandatory Pavitra Portal procedure, defective advertisement publication, and lack of TET qualification.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Pavitra Portal MEPS Act 1977 MEPS Rules 1981 teacher recruitment

Kinjal Vilas Bastav v. State of Maharashtra

26 Feb 2025 · Bharati Dangre; Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court allowed the petitioners' claim to Scheduled Tribe status by holding that valid caste certificates of close paternal blood relatives establish entitlement to Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe certificates, quashing the impugned rejection order.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Scheduled Tribe Certificate Koli Mahadev Caste Validity Certificate Blood Relation

Miss Nita Gopalrao Dalvi v. State of Maharashtra

26 Feb 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court held that a sports certificate issued for participation in a recognized sport cannot be invalidated retrospectively due to subsequent delisting, and a candidate qualifying on general merit cannot be denied appointment on that basis.

administrative petition_allowed Significant sports certificate reservation general merit appointment

Miss Tehasin Shabbir Ahamad Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra

26 Feb 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court held that the government ban on recruitment of teachers does not apply to minority aided educational institutions, directing reconsideration of the petitioner's appointment approval.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Minority Educational Institution Article 30(1) Recruitment Ban Surplus Teachers

Jehangir Tehmas Patel v. Fateh Singh Cheema & Ors.

25 Feb 2025 · Arif S. Doctor
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court granted Letters of Administration with the Will annexed to the Plaintiff, holding the 1986 Will duly executed and attested, rejecting the caveats for lack of caveatable interest and awarding costs against the Defendants.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Letters of Administration Indian Succession Act, 1925 Will execution and attestation Caveatable interest

Nazim Mohammed Yusuf Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra

25 Feb 2025 · Sarang V. Kotwal; S.M. Modak

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition to quash FIR under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that the offence is complete without proving Section 11, and the trial should continue despite the complainant's death and missing original currency notes.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 12 PC Act bribery quashing of FIR

Hanuman Jairam Naik v. The State of Maharashtra

25 Feb 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Kamal Khata
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the demolition of an illegally constructed property, holding that illegality in construction is incurable and fundamental rights do not protect unauthorized acts.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant illegal construction demolition fundamental rights Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act

Ajay Shankar Rathod v. Zilla Parishad, Satara & Ors.

25 Feb 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

The Bombay High Court held that suspicion without evidence cannot justify disqualification in examinations and quashed the direction for a mock test, directing appointment of the petitioner based on his original score.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant unfair examination practices presumption of innocence CCTV footage examination malpractice

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Panchamrut CHS Ltd.

24 Feb 2025 · Amit Borkar

The Bombay High Court upheld a unilateral deemed conveyance order under MOFA, holding that disputes over title and subdivision must be resolved by civil courts, and dismissed the writ petition challenging the conveyance.

property appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 deemed conveyance Competent Authority Section 11 MOFA

Khurshed Rustom Engineer v. Ajita Ranjit Madhavji & Ors.

24 Feb 2025 · Madhav J. Jamdar
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld eviction decrees based on bonafide requirement under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, allowing consideration of subsequent events post-Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, but set aside decrees based on acquisition of alternate premises due to lack of proof.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant bonafide requirement Bombay Rent Act, 1947 Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 subsequent events

Shree Doodhganga Vedhganga Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Mangoli v. State of Maharashtra

24 Feb 2025 · Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The High Court allowed approval of a Junior Clerk appointment in an aided private school despite procedural irregularities in recruitment, protecting the selected candidate's rights while imposing costs on the management.

administrative petition_allowed Significant aided private schools non-teaching staff recruitment Article 16 appointment approval

Pandurang Shripati Magadum v. Rajaram Ragho Taware & Ors.

24 Feb 2025 · Bharati Dangre; Shyam C. Chandak

The High Court quashed the FIR against the petitioner for procedural irregularities and lack of proper application of mind by the Magistrate in ordering investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC after cognizance and investigation under Section 202 CrPC.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 156(3) CrPC taking cognizance Section 200 CrPC Section 202 CrPC

Kishore Mohanlal Dingra v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

24 Feb 2025 · M.S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court held that adjusting a tax refund against a pending demand is illegal once 20% of the demand is paid and the appeal is pending, directing refund and expeditious disposal of the appeal.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax refund adjustment Assessment year 2014-15 Assessment year 2016-17 Section 143(3) Income Tax Act

Om Developers v. Bernardine Mouad Herique

23 Feb 2025 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

The Bombay High Court held that rejection of a Section 16 application cannot be challenged via a Section 37 petition against a Section 17 interim order and refused to interfere with the arbitral tribunal’s interim relief.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 16 application Section 17 interim order Section 37 challenge

M/s. Pyramid Developers v. Union of India

21 Feb 2025 · A.S. Chandurkar; Rajesh S. Patil
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that a non-banking financial company not meeting prescribed asset thresholds is not a "financial institution" under the SARFAESI Act and thus cannot invoke Section 14, issuing a writ of Prohibition to restrain proceedings.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 14 financial institution secured creditor

Suyash Suryakant Patil v. National Medical Commission

21 Feb 2025 · A.S. Chandurkar; M.M. Sathaye
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that functional competency assessment governs eligibility for medical education and PwD reservation, directing restoration of admission despite disability exceeding 40%.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant disability certification functional competency PwD reservation medical education eligibility

M/s. Vaishnavi Engineers and Developers Private Limited v. Navnath Ramkrishna Mhatre and Others

21 Feb 2025 · N. J. Jamadar

The High Court held that a plaintiff has an absolute right to unconditionally withdraw a suit and set aside the trial court's order condoning a 9-year delay in seeking recall of such withdrawal without sufficient cause.

civil appeal_allowed Significant withdrawal of suit Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC condonation of delay recall of order

Parvath Shetty v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

21 Feb 2025 · Sandeep V. Marne

Managing committee members without ownership or MHADA-approved membership in a cooperative housing society can be validly removed under Section 78A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act for acting prejudicially to the society's interests.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 Section 78A Managing Committee Removal Society Membership Validity

Watergrace Products v. Nashik Municipal Corporation

20 Feb 2025 · Alok Aradhe, CJ; Bharati Dangre, J

The Bombay High Court struck down arbitrary tender conditions requiring reduced experience and excessive net worth, directing the municipal corporation to reframe them in conformity with CVC guidelines and Article 14.

administrative petition_allowed Significant tender conditions arbitrariness Article 14 judicial review