High Court of Bombay
5,131 judgments
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.
Kshitija Vijay Kakade v. The State of Maharashtra & Triveni Sachin Chabukswar
The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR against the petitioner holding that a girlfriend does not fall within the definition of 'relative' under Section 498-A IPC and continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
Santosh Vishnu Mardhekar v. Arun Shamrao Mardhekar
The Bombay High Court set aside an interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit, holding that the plaintiff cannot claim infringement when not using the registered trademark on packaging and that injunction relief must align with pleadings.
M/s. Mobile Arts S.A.L. v. M/s. Mauj Mobile Private Ltd.
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the trial court's order granting unconditional leave to defend in a summary suit where the defendant admitted the contract and debt but failed to pay, holding that summons for judgment must be made absolute.
Shri Vasantrao Chougule Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of a Sale Confirmation Certificate under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, ruling that the legal heirs' delayed challenge to an auction sale conducted after the borrower's death was barred by procedural rules.
Just Universal Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the disqualification of petitioners from a government tender for failing to meet eligibility criteria related to providing manpower, emphasizing judicial restraint in tender matters absent arbitrariness or mala fides.
Minaxi Rohit Biradar v. Rohit Bhimashankar Biradar
The Bombay High Court allowed the wife's application to transfer matrimonial proceedings from Mumbai to Pune, emphasizing the paramount importance of her convenience under Section 24 CPC and rejecting the husband's objections.
Rajiv S. Somani v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Revenue Minister's order restoring mutation in favor of Mrs. Lukmani, holding that revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to decide disputed gift validity and religious faith, which are civil court matters.
Kalaskarwadi Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that a government corrigendum effecting substantive policy change without mandatory procedural approval is invalid, but registrations granted under it during the interim period are protected to avoid economic disruption.
Suresh Agarwal & Ors. v. Sudhir Agarwal & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a cooperative society's managing committee must maintain more than two thirds elected members throughout its tenure to remain validly constituted, and falling below this threshold due to resignations invalidates the committee, requiring fresh elections or intervention.
Nandkishor Shivdin Sahu & Ors. v. Sanjeevani Naresh Patil & Ors.
The High Court held that the Maintenance Tribunal cannot cancel a gift deed on vague non-maintenance allegations without specific findings under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and such validity disputes must be adjudicated by a civil court.
Amar S. Mulchandani v. Directorate of Enforcement; Vinay v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that closure of the predicate offence FIR does not render the related ECIR under the PMLA non est and upheld the subsuming of subsequent FIRs into the ECIR for comprehensive money laundering investigation.
Joshua Henry Fernandes v. Deepa Punjani
The Bombay High Court allowed transfer of matrimonial and custody proceedings from Goa to Mumbai, prioritizing the wife's convenience and hardship under Section 24 CPC.
Shri Bhagwant Dagadu Chambhar v. Sou. Tarabai @ Hirabai Nivrutti Sonawane
The Bombay High Court held that daughters whose fathers died before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force are entitled to coparcenary rights by birth under the 2005 Amendment to Section 6 of the Act, affirming the Appellate Court’s decree granting the daughter a 1/4th share in ancestral property.