High Court of Bombay

4,240 judgments

Year:

Benaifer Vispi Patel v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Palghar & Ors.

15 Jul 2024 · G. S. Kulkarni; Somasekhar Sundaresan

The Bombay High Court quashed a Section 148 notice issued on defective electronic information under the faceless scheme, holding that the Assessing Officer must verify and apply mind before dispensing with procedural safeguards under Section 148A.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 148 Income Tax Act Section 148A Income Tax Act Section 135A Income Tax Act faceless assessment

Amol Gajanan Kirtikar v. Ravindra Dattaram Waikar

15 Jul 2024 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that an election petition lacking a concise statement of material facts demonstrating material effect on election result under Sections 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the RP Act is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

constitutional appeal_allowed Significant Election Petition Representation of People Act, 1951 Section 100(1)(d)(iii) Section 100(1)(d)(iv)

Ganatra Hotels Private Limited & Ors. v. Kiran Ranchodas Ganatra & Anr.

12 Jul 2024 · R.I. Chagla J

The Bombay High Court upheld the arbitral award granting monetary exit to the Ganatra Group, holding that the award was not contrary to public policy and the Ganatras were ready and willing to perform their contractual obligations.

commercial_arbitration appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 public policy readiness and willingness

Rajshekhar Udayprasad Singh v. The State of Maharashtra

12 Jul 2024 · A.S. Gadkari; Shyam C. Chandak

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.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant abetment of suicide Section 306 IPC instigation quashing of FIR

Nilesh Balkrishna Rode v. Suvarna Nilesh Rode & State of Maharashtra

12 Jul 2024 · A. S. Gadkari; Dr. Neela Gokhale

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.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR abuse of process inherent improbability POCSO Act

M/s. Autopet; Shweta Jayprakash Singh v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

11 Jul 2024 · K. R. Shriram; Jitendra Jain

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.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant dealership termination arbitrariness natural justice writ jurisdiction

Chhagan Ramchandra Pondkule v. Dhanaji Dinkar Jadhav

11 Jul 2024 · G. S. Kulkarni; Somasekhar Sundaresan

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.

property petition_dismissed Significant National Highways Act, 1956 Section 3H(4) land acquisition compensation apportionment

Dr. Deelip Mhaisekar v. Dr. Ajay Sahebrao Chandanwale & State of Maharashtra

11 Jul 2024 · A.S. Chandurkar; Rajesh S. Patil

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.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant additional charge administrative exigency estoppel seniority

Adarsh Bharat Enviro Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

11 Jul 2024 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ; Amit Borkar, J.

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.

administrative petition_allowed Significant tender process pre-qualification criteria debarment blacklisting

Surekha Luxman Sonovane v. The State of Maharashtra

10 Jul 2024 · Nitin Jamdar; M. M. Sathaye

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.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant medical negligence educational institutions first aid facilities writ jurisdiction

Vrindavan CHSL v. State of Maharashtra

10 Jul 2024 · B. P. Colabawalla; Somasekhar Sundaresan

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.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant lease rent fixation Government Resolution Ready Reckoner Article 14

Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. M/s. Pahelvi Bakery

10 Jul 2024 · ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Cites 2 · Cited by 1

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.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 manufacturing process use of power refrigerator

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Dinendra Ratansi & Ors.

10 Jul 2024 · Arun R. Pedneker
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

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.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Employees State Insurance Corporation occupier liability ESIC dues recovery principal employer

Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. Sangita Shivaji Kate

10 Jul 2024 · Amit Borkar

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.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Order VI Rule 17 CPC Order I Rule 10 CPC amendment of plaint partition suit

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Mumbai v. Banzai Estates P. Ltd.

09 Jul 2024 · G. S. Kulkarni; Somasekhar Sundaresan
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

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.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Income from house property Business income Section 22 Income Tax Act Section 24 Income Tax Act

Damodar Badrinarayan Bhandari v. Vishnu Dagdu Darekar

09 Jul 2024 · Milind N. Jadhav

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.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant partition suit Hindu Undivided Family property Order VII Rule 11 CPC mutation entries

M/s. TML Business Services Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Salex Tax

09 Jul 2024 · K. R. Shriram; Jitendra Jain

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.

tax petition_allowed Significant refund adjustment Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears of Tax Act, 2019 MVAT Rules 2005 tax refund

Nasim Razzak Ghanchi and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

06 Jul 2024 · Sandeep V. Marne

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.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order XXII Rule 5 CPC legal representative summary enquiry inheritance rights

Rajendra S. Bajaj v. The Union of India

05 Jul 2024 · K. R. Shriram; Jitendra Jain

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.

customs petition_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Baggage Rules, 1998 personal effects duty-free import

Anjlli Patil alias Anjlii Gaurav Sharma v. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd

04 Jul 2024 · Milind N. Jadhav

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.

civil appeal_allowed Significant remission of court fees wholly dependent Indian Soldier family Government Notification 1965