High Court of Bombay
4,240 judgments
Santosh Madhukar Bhondve v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the allotment of Gairan land for affordable housing under PMAY, holding that the State Government's overriding power under Section 40 of the MLRC and the Development Plan under the MRTP Act prevail over prohibitions on diversion of Gairan land.
Ramesh Krishna Gopnur v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for sexually assaulting five minor girls, relying on consistent victim and eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and statutory presumption under the POCSO Act.
Balkrishna Dadoba Yedekar & Ors. v. Sangli Municipal Council
The Bombay High Court upheld the termination of Petitioners' tenancy rights on municipal land exempted from the Tenancy Act under Section 88(1)(b), holding that Section 4B does not protect tenancy once land is exempted, and dismissed writ petitions challenging the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's order.
Bhushan Vora v. The Union of India
The Bombay High Court quashed a Show Cause Notice issued under the Customs Act due to an eight-year delay in adjudication and failure to inform the petitioner about transfer to the call book, holding such delay and non-communication violate natural justice and justify writ relief.
Suresh Vamanrao Gaikwad v. M/s. Karva Developers & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking impleadment of a third party purchaser in a specific performance suit, holding that such impleadment would impermissibly enlarge the suit's scope and that the petitioner was not a bonafide purchaser due to a cancelled Power of Attorney and knowledge of pending litigation.
M/s. Trishul Construction Co. v. City Industrial and Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that the State Government's communication dated 1st August 2018 is a binding directive under Section 154 of the MRTP Act, and stayed CIDCO's cancellation of allotment pending the State Government's final clarification.
Dr. Chetna Rajput v. Modern Education Society
The Bombay High Court directed prompt payment of delayed gratuity with interest and expedited processing of pension benefits to a retired teacher, holding the delay unjustified and arbitrary under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Shri Sanjay Govind Parab
The Bombay High Court held that a government servant who disobeys a transfer order after refusal of interim relief cannot claim pay for the period of unauthorized absence even if the transfer order is later set aside on procedural grounds.
Daulat Nagar, Borivali (East), Mumbai v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court transferred the murder investigation of ex-Corporator Abhishek Ghosalkar to the CBI, finding lapses in the police probe and emphasizing the need for a fair, impartial, and comprehensive investigation.
Jayant Sanjeeva Shetty v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court rejected bail for a Managing Director accused of illegally accepting public deposits and diverting funds, holding that prima facie offences under IPC and MPID Act are made out given the scale, entrustment, and risk of interference with justice.
Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
The Bombay High Court held that contractual employees fulfilling eligibility criteria are entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and quashed the denial of such benefits to the petitioner.
Volvo Group India Pvt Ltd v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that writ petitions challenging orders of the Revisionary Authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act are maintainable before it since the appellate order forms a significant part of the cause of action arising within its jurisdiction.
Miss XYZ v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court allowed a minor sexual assault victim to choose medical termination or continuation of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks based on Medical Board opinion, emphasizing her reproductive autonomy and directing comprehensive medical and legal support.
Vicky Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. M/s Motiram Tolaram & Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition directing the promoter to execute deemed conveyance in favor of the cooperative society as per the MOFA Agreement and statutory provisions, setting aside the Competent Authority's order dismissing the application.
Hem Prabhakar Shah v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held the petitioner's arrest illegal for violating the mandatory 24-hour production rule and non-communication of grounds of arrest, directing his immediate release by Habeas Corpus.
Nalwa Sons Investments Limited & Ors. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging SEBI's delayed show cause notice, holding that such notices should not be quashed at the threshold on grounds of delay, res judicata, or non-application of mind, and directed SEBI to furnish certain documents to the petitioners.
Krishna Babaji Bhavar v. The Union of India
The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal's quashing of a transfer order of Indian Forest Service officers due to procedural irregularities in the Civil Services Board's recommendations, while leaving open the question of whether state or central rules govern such transfers.
National Security Services v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that a bidder can consolidate multiple work orders from the same financial year to meet tender eligibility criteria, setting aside the rejection of the petitioner’s bid as arbitrary.
Khanjan Hitendra Jasani v. Krupali Khanjan Jasani and Anr.
The Bombay High Court allowed transfer of Domestic Violence Act proceedings to the Family Court to be tried along with the pending Marriage Petition, emphasizing avoidance of multiplicity and the Family Court's jurisdiction to grant interim relief.
Ankur Prabhakar Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that police officers completing their normal tenure under section 22N of the Maharashtra Police Act are not mandatorily required to be transferred out of the Mumbai Commissionerate, and mid-term transfers within the Commissionerate on administrative grounds are lawful.