High Court of Bombay
4,240 judgments
Onkar Chandrakant Teli and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another
The Bombay High Court partly quashed the FIR against certain family members for lack of prima facie offence while maintaining it against the husband and mother-in-law due to serious allegations, applying the principles governing quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Meenal Shashikant Joglekar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The High Court set aside the Tribunal's quashing of appointments, holding that age relaxation and reservation challenges must follow proper procedure and cannot be raised belatedly after participation.
Prabhat Kumar Singh v. Accu Pack Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court upheld forfeiture of gratuity under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act where employees caused financial loss to employer by procuring parts through a fictitious firm, dismissing petitions challenging the forfeiture.
Mr D.V.M. Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the need to protect a Grade II A heritage building during Metro Line III construction, directed restoration of a damaged finial by MMRCL, and allowed the Petitioners liberty to seek future relief for any damage.
Mrs. Alpana Ganesh Patil v. Block Development Officer & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Divisional Commissioner's order directing registration of a criminal offence against a Gramsevak for alleged forgery in government records, holding that the inquiry authority acted within its powers and the court cannot adjudicate guilt at this stage.
Mamasaheb Mahadeo Padule v. Sonajirao Kshirsagar Homeopathy Medical College
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition directing admission of a candidate to a postgraduate medical course by creating an additional seat due to wrongful denial caused by an administrative error in caste certificate validity.
Sunil Modi v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that the State Cabinet could constitutionally withdraw its recommendations for Legislative Council nominations before the Governor acted, dismissing the PIL challenging such withdrawal.
Ajay Peter Topannu v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court acquitted two accused of murder due to unreliable last seen evidence, involuntary extra-judicial confession, and weak recovery, emphasizing the need for corroboration and voluntariness in conviction.
Welfare Association for The Disabled v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court set aside the Collector's rejection of land allotment for a residential school for disabled persons and directed reconsideration in light of relevant Government Resolutions and recommendations.
Shri Basir alias Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal and awarded compensation to the deceased's dependents, holding that accidental falling from a train constitutes an untoward incident under the Railways Act, and absence of ticket does not negate bonafide passenger status.
Yushika Vivek Gedam v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that a minor's passport cannot be denied solely on a parent's objection when a valid declaration under Annexure C is submitted and no court order prohibits issuance, affirming the minor's fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21.
Bharat Keshavji Chheda v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an ex-parte order directing vacation of premises lacking an Occupation Certificate, holding that unlawful occupation cannot be protected by natural justice and ordering immediate enforcement with exemplary costs.
Nitin Marutrao Kale v. Manikrao Bajirao Malgunde & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed appeals challenging refusal of interim injunctions in suits for specific performance of sale agreements over joint family land, holding that appellants failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations.
Vijaysinh Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that land granted for running a civil hospital reverts to the Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan upon cessation of that purpose under Section 19(b) of the 1940 Act, directing the State to return the land or acquire it lawfully.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Anusaya Sitaram Devrukhkar & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that appeals under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act must be filed within 120 days, and the Court cannot condone delay beyond this period as Section 5 of the Limitation Act is expressly excluded.
Shashikant Chimanlal Makwana; Pradeep Narottam Harosa; Pattron Hotel and Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Pramod Karunakar Shetty; PPS Bar and Kitchen LLP
The Bombay High Court appointed an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate disputes under an LLP Agreement, continued interim injunctions against physical interference, and directed production of audited financials while declining to interfere with excise authorities' liquor license suspension.
Haresh V. Kagrana HUF v. The New Milan Co-operative Housing Society Limited
The Bombay High Court allowed an appeal restraining redevelopment until exclusive Otlas and attached terraces shown in sanctioned plans are included in appellants' flat area entitlements.
Rajaram Bandu Gadade & Ors. v. Govina Sonba Gadade & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that civil courts have jurisdiction to decide partition of ancestral joint family property despite existence of a Section 32M tenancy certificate issued in the name of one member, affirming that such certificate does not negate joint family rights.
Shreegopal Barasia v. M/s. Creative Homes
The Bombay High Court held that the existence of an arbitration agreement is to be prima facie determined by the Court under Section 11, while substantive disputes on authority and validity fall within the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 16.
Izhar Nizamulhak Khan v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that prosecuting a Factory Manager under Section 304A IPC after the Occupier's prosecution under the Factories Act does not violate double jeopardy and refused to quash the FIR.