High Court of Bombay
5,131 judgments
Shahaji Nanai Thorat Alias Shahajirao Dhondiba Thorat v. State of Maharashtra Returning Officer
The Bombay High Court held that review petitions are not maintainable against its orders dismissing election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, as the Act does not confer power of review and provides a self-contained remedy scheme.
Shahaji Nanai Thorat Alias Shahajirao Dhondiba Thorat v. State of Maharashtra Returning Officer & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that review petitions are not maintainable against its orders dismissing election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as the Act does not confer power of review and is a self-contained code.
Shri. Hanuman Maruti Mandir Deosthan Trust v. Sau. Vina Yogesh Doke
The court upheld the cancellation of a second trust's registration for the same temple, holding that only one public trust can be registered per temple under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and that procedural review is permissible to correct fundamental errors.
Arun Popat Darekar v. Valuba Pandurang Urade
The High Court allowed the writ petition directing the trial court to permit Defendant No. 3 to lead independent evidence despite Defendant No. 2 having testified on his behalf, emphasizing the party's right to give evidence and balancing procedural rules.
ALJ Residency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that absence of occupation certificate does not bar grant of deemed conveyance under MOFA, and promoter’s default cannot defeat flat purchasers’ statutory rights.
Arunkumar Udayraj Singh v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr
The Bombay High Court upheld convictions for rash and negligent driving causing death and injury, rejecting contributory negligence and dismissing the revision application.
Rajrishi Bindawat v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court dismissed petitions challenging arrests for a fatal hit-and-run, holding that non-communication of written grounds of arrest does not invalidate custody in serious offences where the accused are aware of the charges and evidence.
Sambhaji Achyutrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra
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.
Vishnu Kashinath Bhoir and Ors. v. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Maharashtra and Ors.
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.
Sudershan Laxman Teddu v. Union of India and Ors.
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.
Lodha Belmondo Hsg. Federation Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
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.
Ajeet Vikram Bahadur Singh v. The State of Maharashtra
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.
Gobindram Daryanumal Talreja & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
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.
Siddappa Kashiraya Savli v. State of Maharashtra
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.
Mohit Bharatiya v. State of Maharashtra
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.
M/S. Blue Heaven Co-op Housing Society Ltd v. M/s. Punit Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
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.
Rahul Sambhu Kabade & Ors. v. Subhashsingh Surajsingh Thakur & Ors.
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.
Lakhani Housing Corporation Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra
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.
Pawar Satya Prakash Tiwari v. Solutionsline Softtech Pvt. Ltd
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.
Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v. The State of Maharashtra
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.