High Court of Bombay

4,240 judgments

Year:

Sambhaji Achyutrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra

25 Nov 2024 · A.S. Chandurkar; Rajesh S. Patil

The Bombay High Court held that the arrest of a police officer without State Government consent and without compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards was illegal, violating Article 21, and awarded compensation.

criminal petition_allowed Significant illegal arrest Section 45(2) CrPC Section 50 CrPC Section 56 CrPC

Vishnu Kashinath Bhoir and Ors. v. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

25 Nov 2024 · S. M. Modak

The Bombay High Court held that in suits for declaration and injunction without possession relief, valuation for court fee must be based on assessment value under Section 6(iv)(d) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, not market value, and set aside the trial court’s suo motu order directing market valuation.

civil petition_allowed Significant valuation of suit property court fee pecuniary jurisdiction Maharashtra Court Fees Act 1959

Sudershan Laxman Teddu v. Union of India and Ors.

25 Nov 2024 · Milind N. Jadhav
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court quashed the conviction under the Customs Act due to non-compliance with mandatory search and seizure procedures and failure of prosecution to prove possession of seized gold bars beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Customs Act 1962 Section 102 Customs Act search and seizure confessional statement

Lodha Belmondo Hsg. Federation Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

22 Nov 2024 · Sharmila U. Deshmukh

The Bombay High Court held that registration of a Federal Society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act before completion of the real estate project is premature and must comply with RERA and MOFA provisions, dismissing the petition challenging cancellation of such registration.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 Federal Society registration Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963

Ajeet Vikram Bahadur Singh v. The State of Maharashtra

21 Nov 2024 · M. S. Karnik; Dr. Neela Gokhale

The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR under IPC for offences already prosecuted and convicted under the Factories Act, holding that such subsequent prosecution violates the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.

criminal petition_allowed Significant double jeopardy Article 20(2) Constitution of India Section 300 CrPC Factories Act, 1948

Gobindram Daryanumal Talreja & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

21 Nov 2024 · Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court allowed the criminal revision, quashing charges under Section 353 IPC against Advocates who merely questioned CBI officers' identity during a search, holding no prima facie case of assault or obstruction was made out.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 353 IPC Assault on public servant Obstruction of lawful duty Discharge application

Siddappa Kashiraya Savli v. State of Maharashtra

21 Nov 2024 · Milind N. Jadhav

The High Court allowed the revision application and discharged the Investigating Officer accused due to lack of prima facie evidence implicating him in the custodial death, emphasizing no vicarious liability and the necessity of clear reasons in discharge orders.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant discharge application prima facie evidence Investigating Officer liability no vicarious liability

Mohit Bharatiya v. State of Maharashtra

21 Nov 2024 · Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court held that prosecuting the applicant under a second FIR for the same set of facts after acquittal violates the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 Cr.P.C., and quashed the second prosecution.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant double jeopardy Article 20(2) Constitution of India Section 300 Cr.P.C. same offence

M/S. Blue Heaven Co-op Housing Society Ltd v. M/s. Punit Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

21 Nov 2024 · Sharmila U. Deshmukh · 2024:BHC-AS:44347

The Bombay High Court held that owners who caused construction are promoters under MOFA and must convey title to the cooperative society, setting aside the Competent Authority's rejection of deemed conveyance application which exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding title disputes.

property appeal_allowed Significant Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act deemed conveyance promoter definition competent authority jurisdiction

Rahul Sambhu Kabade & Ors. v. Subhashsingh Surajsingh Thakur & Ors.

21 Nov 2024 · Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing a civil appeal, holding that negligence of an advocate without supporting evidence is not sufficient cause to excuse delay.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant condonation of delay advocate negligence sufficient cause civil appeal

Lakhani Housing Corporation Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra

19 Nov 2024 · A. S. Gadkari; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging MHADA's lawful tender-based redevelopment of dilapidated cooperative housing societies under Regulation 33(9) of the DCPR, affirming the State's authority and the petitioners' lack of locus to restrain the process.

property petition_dismissed Significant redevelopment MHADA Development Control Regulations cooperative housing societies

Pawar Satya Prakash Tiwari v. Solutionsline Softtech Pvt. Ltd

19 Nov 2024 · S. M. Modak · 2024:BHC-AS:46951

The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court's refusal to discard additional affidavit and allowed production of documents with conditions, directing framing of limited additional issues and emphasizing procedural fairness in a software development recovery suit.

civil appeal_allowed Significant additional affidavit Order VII Rule 14 CPC production of documents summary suit

Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v. The State of Maharashtra

19 Nov 2024 · A. S. Gadkari; Dr. Neela Gokhale

The High Court held that withdrawal of consent to mutual divorce under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is a statutory right and does not constitute abuse of process to quash criminal proceedings alleging cruelty and dowry demands.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 13B Hindu Marriage Act Mutual divorce Withdrawal of consent Abuse of process of law

Sandeep Pandurang Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

19 Nov 2024 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ; Amit Borkar, J.
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court directed coordinated digital verification of real estate project documents under the RERA Act to prevent fraudulent registrations, while refusing a broad re-scrutiny absent specific evidence.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 MahaRERA commencement certificate fraudulent registration

Rina Sanjiv Kamdar v. Mr. Murlidhar T. Tilwani

19 Nov 2024 · Madhav J. Jamdar

The Bombay High Court upheld issuance of process against a HUF member under Section 138/141 NI Act, holding that a HUF is not an "association of individuals" under Section 141 but specific averments of active involvement justify process.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 Section 141 Hindu Undivided Family

Sunil Dharma Mane v. National Investigating Agency

18 Nov 2024 · Revati Mohite Dere; Prithviraj K. Chavan

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appellant's bail plea under the NIA Act, holding that the prosecution has established a prima facie case of conspiracy and murder involving the appellant, warranting denial of bail.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant bail National Investigation Agency Act conspiracy murder

Manoj Suryakant Dalvi v. The State of Maharashtra & Tina Suny John

18 Nov 2024 · Bharati Dangre; Manjusha Deshpande

The Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 354 IPC against an airline security manager, holding that mere holding of a woman's hand without intent to outrage modesty does not constitute an offence.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 354 IPC outraging modesty intent to outrage criminal force

Dattatraya Ramchandra Chavan v. G. Jaykumar

18 Nov 2024 · S. M. Modak

The Bombay High Court held that a co-operative society member can be impleaded as a necessary party in a suit against a local authority concerning unauthorized construction affecting common property, even if the society itself is not a party.

civil appeal_allowed Significant impleadment Order I Rule 10(2) CPC co-operative society member rights unauthorized construction

L & T IHI Consortium v. Union of India & Ors.

14 Nov 2024 · G. S. Kulkarni; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of GST levy on advances for supplies "agreed to be made" and denial of input tax credit until actual receipt of services, dismissing the petition challenging Sections 7, 12, 13, 16(2)(b), and refund provisions of the CGST Act.

tax petition_dismissed Significant GST input tax credit advance payment interest-free loan

Shivaji Santu Zanzad v. The State of Maharashtra

14 Nov 2024 · Milind N. Jadhav
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The High Court set aside convictions for rash and negligent driving causing death, emphasizing the need to consider contributory negligence and contradictory evidence before upholding such convictions.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant rash and negligent driving motor accident contributory negligence Section 279 IPC