High Court of Bombay
4,240 judgments
Kishor Ramji Patel v. Sunanda Sudhakar Choughule
The Bombay High Court upheld the Trial Court's order rejecting the Defendants' application to dismiss the Plaintiffs' suit for partition, injunction, and possession, holding that the suit is maintainable and not barred by res judicata or limitation.
Nilesh Suresh Kene & Ors. v. Ashok Durga Pillay & Ors.
The High Court held that the 120-day mandatory limitation period for filing Written Statements to Counter-claims in Commercial Suits commences only upon valid service of summons, and condoned delay beyond 120 days where summons were not served, dismissing the petition challenging such condonation.
Solapur Municipal Transport Undertaking v. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
The Bombay High Court allowed partial deposit for stay of execution of an arbitral award in a bus supply dispute, upheld the distinction between the Municipal Transport Undertaking and Corporation, and rejected unconditional stay on fraud grounds.
SecLink Technologies Corporation v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The court upheld the cancellation of the earlier Dharavi redevelopment tender due to material changes involving railway land inclusion and dismissed the petition challenging the fresh tender and award to respondent No.3.
The State of Maharashtra v. Swenjita Sanjeet Goraksha and Anr.
The Bombay High Court upheld the acquittal of accused in a criminal case arising from a civil dispute, holding that inconsistent and uncorroborated prosecution evidence failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Nisar Abdul Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
The High Court quashed the conviction under Section 326 IPC due to inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence, allowing the criminal revision and ordering the applicant's release.
AFX+Q Engineers v. Nikita Udyog
The Bombay High Court held that it has jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. to accept consent terms and allow compounding of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act even after conviction and appeal, subject to conditions and in the interest of justice.
AFX+Q Engineers and Anr. v. Nikita Udyog and Anr.
The Bombay High Court held that it has jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. to accept compromise terms and allow compounding of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act even after conviction and appeal, subject to conditions in the interest of justice.
ECGC Ltd. v. Nifty Labs Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court set aside an arbitral award for lack of jurisdiction and upheld that non-disclosure in an insurance proposal voids the policy absent clear waiver.
Sunil Vitthal Wagh v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that an accused arrested after filing of the charge-sheet who was shown as absconding is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC if investigation is not completed within the prescribed period, affirming the interpretation in Pankaj vs. State of Maharashtra and emphasizing the constitutional protection of personal liberty.
Dr. Prince John Edavazhikal v. Collector of Stamps and Joint District Registrar, Palghar & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that stamp duty on a property sold by Bank of India under SARFAESI Act must be levied on the declared sale price in the Sale Certificate, not on independently assessed higher market value by Stamping Authorities.
Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a decree for specific performance is executable against transferees pendente lite under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the executing court must enforce possession despite appellants' claims of title acquired during suit pendency.
Jyoti Builders v. The Chief Executive Officer, The Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Slum Rehabilitation Authority’s orders, holding that rehabilitation alone does not confer land rights absent clear title and that acquisition under the Slum Act requires mandatory procedural compliance.
Vidyaa Sudhir Moravekar v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
The Bombay High Court quashed the Look-Out Circular against a senior citizen accused after chargesheet filing and cognizance, emphasizing that LOCs require valid reasons and cannot be maintained post-bail and cooperation.
Arya Sandip Tarar v. National Testing Agency & Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition directing admission of a candidate to MBBS by creating a supernumerary seat, holding that a valid Caste Validity Certificate suffices despite non-production of the original Caste Certificate referenced therein.
M/s. Pyramid Land Developers v. Mr. Shivnarayan Acchaibar Singh & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld an interim injunction restraining a terminated developer from using a conveyance deed executed under a cancelled power of attorney, emphasizing the validity of termination and the need to protect redevelopment progress.
Arun Bhoomi Corporation v. M/s. Jagruti Developers
The Bombay High Court set aside an Arbitral Tribunal's interim order granting reliefs to Jagruti Developers due to gross delay, procedural errors, and conflict with prior court orders, emphasizing strict adherence to principles governing interim relief under arbitration law.
Savitri Shekuram Jadhav v. Subhash Namdev Shinde
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition permitting expert examination of the petitioner’s thumb impression to challenge execution of a registered agreement for sale, affirming that denial of execution can be proved despite the document’s registration.
Shashikant Sakharam Gawade v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has the power to extend the period of the Writ of Commission under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act without requiring a fresh application, directing expeditious execution of possession orders with necessary assistance.
Gopal Radheshyam Yadav v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court granted bail to the accused in a MCOC Act case, holding that the statutory conditions for invoking the Act were not met and prolonged detention without trial violated fundamental rights.