High Court of Bombay

4,240 judgments

Year:

Vivek Krushna Dode v. The State of Maharashtra

21 Jan 2025 · A. S. Gadkari; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court held that a tenant cannot challenge municipal notices under the MRTP Act and must seek remedy against the landlord in civil court.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant tenant rights Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 Section 52 MRTP Act Section 53 MRTP Act

State Bank of India v. Manav Greys Exim Private Limited

20 Jan 2025 · B. P. Colabawalla; Somasekhar Sundaresan

The Bombay High Court quashed a Maintenance Tribunal order reversing a senior citizen's gift deed due to abuse of the Senior Citizens Act and failure to adjudicate jurisdictional facts, enabling SBI to enforce its mortgage security.

civil petition_allowed Significant Senior Citizens Act Section 23 gift deed maintenance tribunal

All India Central Bank Officers Federation v. Union of India

20 Jan 2025 · M.S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain · 2025:BHC-OS:834-DB

The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of retrospective amendments introducing a legal fiction deeming concessional rent for employer-provided accommodation as taxable perquisite under Section 17(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, rejecting claims of impermissible judicial override and arbitrariness.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 17(2)(ii) Finance Act, 2007 legal fiction

Mohd. Mobin Jahurul Hasan Manihar v. State of Maharashtra

20 Jan 2025 · Milind N. Jadhav
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court granted bail to an undertrial accused in possession of commercial quantity of narcotics due to prolonged pre-trial incarceration violating the right to speedy trial under Article 21, despite the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant bail NDPS Act Section 37 NDPS commercial quantity

Smt. Bharati Tukaram Patil v. Zillha Parishad & Ors.

20 Jan 2025 · Gauri Godse

The court held that a PAP certificate must be submitted in the candidate's name by the application deadline to validate the application, and late submission cannot retrospectively validate an invalid application, thereby setting aside the appointment of respondent no. 4.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Project Affected Person PAP certificate Recruitment advertisement Eligibility date

Dr. Manohar Kacharu Sanap v. Savitribai Phule Pune University & Ors.

20 Jan 2025 · Bharati Dangre; Ashwin D. Bhobe
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court set aside the suspension of a university professor as arbitrary and not supported by prima facie evidence of moral turpitude, affirming writ jurisdiction over private aided educational institutions performing public functions.

labor appeal_allowed Significant suspension moral turpitude departmental enquiry writ jurisdiction

Prema Amritham Aiyer v. Sudha Vitthal Amarapurkar

20 Jan 2025 · N. J. Jamadar · 2025:BHC-AS:2910

The High Court held that the question of legal representation of a deceased party in a pending appeal must be determined on evidence, directing a trial court enquiry before the appellate court decides the issue.

civil appeal_allowed Significant legal representative Order XXII Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure deceased party

City Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Pune

17 Jan 2025 · M.S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court held that issuance of reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to a non-existent company post-merger is a substantive illegality and quashed such notices despite departmental knowledge of the merger.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 notice merger non-existent company

The State of Maharashtra v. Dwarikaprasad Sitaram Mishra & Ors.

17 Jan 2025 · Madhav J. Jamdar, J.

The High Court upheld the acquittal of accused in a criminal breach of trust case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the appellate court should not disturb a possible view of acquittal.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant appeal against acquittal criminal breach of trust Section 406 IPC appellate court powers

Ankit Bhuwalka v. IDBI Bank Limited & Union of India

16 Jan 2025 · Revati Mohite Dere; Dr. Neela Gokhale

The Bombay High Court quashed the wilful defaulter declaration against the petitioner due to procedural violations including denial of access to documents and held that natural justice mandates meaningful hearing before such declarations.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Wilful Defaulter Natural Justice Transaction Audit Report RBI Master Circular

Darshan Mahendra Nibjya v. Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors.

16 Jan 2025 · Somasekhar Sundaresan
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that the Section 11 Court's role is limited to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and appointed a substitute arbitrator without deciding complex privity issues, which are for the arbitral tribunal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act privity of arbitration agreement partnership firm arbitration appointment of arbitrator

Sudhir Brijendra Jain v. Rajendra Dhedya Gavit

15 Jan 2025 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court rejected an election petition challenging a candidate’s affidavit disclosure of a second spouse, holding that voluntary additional disclosures do not invalidate nomination nor constitute corrupt practice absent material facts showing election result was affected.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant Election Petition Representation of People Act, 1951 Section 100 Section 123(4)

Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. The Branch Manager, The Goa State Co-op Bank Ltd.

14 Jan 2025 · B. P. Colabawalla; Somasekhar Sundaresan

The Bombay High Court held that it has no power to condone delay beyond 120 days for appeals under Section 42 of the PMLA, 2002, dismissing the appeal filed after such delay.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Section 42 PMLA Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5 Limitation Act

Daulat Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

13 Jan 2025 · Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that deposit of auction proceeds in court pending entitlement adjudication does not discharge debt or stop contractual interest from running until actual payment is made.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant deposit in court contractual interest Order XXI Rule 1 CPC auction proceeds

Sagar Alias Sachin Rajendra Kusekar v. District Magistrate, Pune & Ors.

13 Jan 2025 · Sarang V. Kotwal; S.M. Modak

The Bombay High Court quashed a detention order under the MPDA Act due to unexplained delay in considering the petitioner's representation, violating his constitutional right under Article 22(5).

criminal petition_allowed Significant detention order Article 22(5) representation against detention unexplained delay

Maqsood Ahmed Jamaluddin Khan & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Casa Bella Realty LLP

13 Jan 2025 · M.M. Sathaye

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal challenging municipal notices against alleged unauthorized structures, holding that appellants failed to prove authorization or protection under slum laws and upholding the trial court's refusal of interim relief.

property appeal_dismissed Significant unauthorized construction Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act Section 351 slum rehabilitation

Suryadeep Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. NM Construction

10 Jan 2025 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

The Bombay High Court set aside an arbitral award due to the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator in violation of the arbitration agreement and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasizing the primacy of party autonomy and arbitrator independence.

commercial_arbitration petition_allowed Significant unilateral appointment arbitration agreement Section 34 Arbitration Act Section 11 Arbitration Act

Oliver PULS GmbH v. Force Motors Limited

10 Jan 2025 · Madhav J. Jamdar
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging an arbitrator's appointment for non-disclosure and bias as barred by limitation, affirming the arbitral tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction to decide such challenges under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

commercial_arbitration petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 12 disclosure Section 13 limitation Justifiable doubts

Amit Vyas v. Union of India

10 Jan 2025 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Amit Borkar

The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking judicial directions to regulate online ticket scalping and black marketing, holding that legislative action lies exclusively with the legislature and private ticket resale does not violate fundamental rights absent state involvement.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant Article 226 Constitution of India ticket scalping black marketing online ticket sales

Sanket Sudhakar Pagare v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

10 Jan 2025 · Sarang V. Kotwal; S. M. Modak

The Bombay High Court set aside a preventive detention order due to contradictory grounds and non-application of mind by the detaining authority under the MPDA Act.

criminal petition_allowed Significant preventive detention Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 non-application of mind contradictory grounds of detention