High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Rajshekhar Udayprasad Singh v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide due to insufficient evidence of instigation and mens rea, holding that mere harassment without active provocation does not constitute abetment.
Nilesh Balkrishna Rode v. Suvarna Nilesh Rode & State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings under POCSO and IPC against a father, holding the allegations inherently improbable and the prosecution mala fide, thus preventing abuse of process of law.
M/s. Autopet; Shweta Jayprakash Singh v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
The Bombay High Court quashed the arbitrary termination of a petroleum dealership by BPCL where seals were intact and no proof of tampering was found, restoring the petitioners' dealership and supply.
Chhagan Ramchandra Pondkule v. Dhanaji Dinkar Jadhav
The Bombay High Court held that the Competent Authority rightly declined to refer a dispute over compensation apportionment to the Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, as no prima facie dispute over entitlement existed.
Dr. Deelip Mhaisekar v. Dr. Ajay Sahebrao Chandanwale & State of Maharashtra
The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that additional charge does not confer legal right, estopping the senior officer from challenging long-accepted administrative orders, and restored the petitioner to hold additional charge till superannuation.
Adarsh Bharat Enviro Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a bidder debarred on the tender submission date and failing mandatory pre-qualification criteria is ineligible, quashing the tender committee's decision allowing such bidder to participate.
Surekha Luxman Sonovane v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking damages for medical negligence but directed the State to mandate and monitor adequate first aid and medical facilities in educational institutions.
Vrindavan CHSL v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Government Resolutions fixing lease rent based on Ready Reckoner land values, rejecting challenges of arbitrariness and violation of lease terms.
Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. M/s. Pahelvi Bakery
The Bombay High Court held that storing yeast in a domestic refrigerator does not constitute a manufacturing process aided by power under the ESI Act, dismissing the ESIC’s appeal for retrospective coverage.
Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Dinendra Ratansi & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that an occupier/director is not personally liable for ESIC dues of the company unless he has ultimate control over the factory, and ESIC dues must be recovered from the company or its assets.
Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. Sangita Shivaji Kate
The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court's order allowing amendment to include lease-related claims and impleading lessees as defendants in a partition suit, emphasizing the necessity of such amendments for comprehensive adjudication without altering the suit's fundamental nature.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Mumbai v. Banzai Estates P. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court upheld that rental income from a property owned by the assessee is taxable as income from house property under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, rejecting Revenue's claim to treat it as business income, applying the principle of consistency.
Damodar Badrinarayan Bhandari v. Vishnu Dagdu Darekar
The Bombay High Court upheld the Trial Court's rejection of the third party purchaser's application to dismiss a partition suit over ancestral HUF properties alienated without consent, holding that mutation entries do not extinguish coparceners' rights and the suit is maintainable.
M/s. TML Business Services Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Salex Tax
The Bombay High Court held that a tax refund for 2011-2012 cannot be adjusted against a settled 2010-2011 demand under the Settlement Scheme, directing refund with interest to the petitioner.
Nasim Razzak Ghanchi and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
The High Court held that determination of legal representatives under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC requires a summary enquiry including evidence and remanded the matter for fresh trial, clarifying that such determination does not decide inheritance rights.
Rajendra S. Bajaj v. The Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that used personal jewellery worn by a foreign tourist is exempt from customs duty under Rule 7 of the Baggage Rules, 1998, quashing confiscation and penalty imposed by Customs authorities.
Anjlli Patil alias Anjlii Gaurav Sharma v. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd
The Bombay High Court held that the wife of an Indian Soldier residing with and dependent on her husband is entitled to full remission of court fees under Maharashtra Government Notifications, quashing the trial court's order requiring payment.
Leonard Holding & Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Dhirajlal Vithlani
The Bombay High Court held that re-examination of a witness cannot be conducted by filing an affidavit in-lieu and must be conducted orally by the Court or a Commissioner as mandated under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC.
Mahesh Ramdas Jejurkar v. The Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed a COFEPOSA detention order for failing to specify the precise statutory ground of detention, holding that such ambiguity vitiates the subjective satisfaction and violates procedural safeguards under the Constitution.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. USV Private Limited
The Bombay High Court held that the respondent's activity constituted manufacturing, not unauthorized use of electricity, and upheld the levy of industrial tariff under the Electricity Act, 2003.