High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

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

Leonard Holding & Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Dhirajlal Vithlani

02 Jul 2024 · Sandeep V. Marne

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.

civil petition_allowed Significant Order 18 Rule 4 CPC examination-in-chief re-examination affidavit in-lieu

Mahesh Ramdas Jejurkar v. The Union of India & Ors.

02 Jul 2024 · Bharati Dangre; Manjusha Deshpande

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.

criminal petition_allowed Significant preventive detention COFEPOSA Act subjective satisfaction disjunctive vs conjunctive grounds

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. USV Private Limited

02 Jul 2024 · Avinash G. Gharote
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

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.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant manufacture definition unauthorized use of electricity Section 126 Electricity Act tariff classification

Ajit Prabhakar Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra

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

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition to quash an FIR alleging extortion and intimidation of a public servant through social media threats, holding that virtual force falls within Section 353 IPC and the FIR discloses prima facie cognizable offences.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 353 IPC criminal force extortion public servant

Kishore Tulshiram Mantri v. Dilip Janak Mantri & Ors.

01 Jul 2024 · Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court held that an executing court cannot modify a final partition decree based on a belatedly produced Will suppressed during trial and appeals, dismissing the writ petition challenging the rejection of such application.

civil petition_dismissed Significant partition decree executing court jurisdiction Section 47 CPC registered Will

M/S Hotel Ratanamahal v. Mr. Shivaji Chandrakant Sonawane

01 Jul 2024 · Sandeep V. Marne

The High Court set aside the Labour Court's award of reinstatement and back wages to an employee who voluntarily abandoned service to contest elections and suppressed material facts, holding that such relief is inadmissible despite procedural lapses by the employer.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 25F termination of service voluntary abandonment

Konkan LNG Limited v. The Commissioner of State Tax

28 Jun 2024 · K. R. Shriram; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court held that a breakwater constructed adjacent to a jetty is a civil structure and not "plant and machinery" under GST law, thus disallowing input tax credit on its construction.

tax petition_dismissed Significant input tax credit Section 17(5)(d) CGST Act plant and machinery

Symbiosis Open Education Society v. University Grants Commission

28 Jun 2024 · B. P. Colabawalla; Somasekhar Sundaresan

The Bombay High Court upheld UGC's accreditation and programme offering criteria for distance and online education but directed exemption for skill universities pending development of appropriate accreditation standards.

administrative petition_allowed Significant University Grants Commission Open and Distance Learning Online Programmes NAAC accreditation

V. K. Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

28 Jun 2024 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Arif S. Doctor

The Bombay High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the non-application of Dockyard Memorandum 6/85 to apprentices who joined after its cessation, holding that subsequent valid memorandums govern their service conditions and that the earlier Tribunal order was not binding on them.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant Dockyard Memorandum 6/85 Dockyard Temporary Memorandums Central Administrative Tribunal judgment in rem

Hemant Sambhaji Pawar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

28 Jun 2024 · A. S. Gadkari; Dr Neela Gokhale

The Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC as an abuse of process where the complainant repeated previously resiled allegations resulting in acquittal, emphasizing protection against misuse of law in matrimonial disputes.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 498-A IPC quashing of FIR Section 482 CrPC abuse of process

Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. The State of Maharashtra

28 Jun 2024 · A. S. Gadkari; Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition to quash rape and related charges, holding that prima facie allegations disclose offenses and the court cannot conduct a mini-trial at the quashing stage.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant quashing of FIR Section 376 IPC rape consent

Lata Ratan Rokade v. The State of Maharashtra

28 Jun 2024 · A. S. Gadkari; Sharmila U. Deshmukh

The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of prior approval under the M.C.O.C. Act and dismissed anticipatory bail, holding that bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is barred in M.C.O.C. cases except in rare circumstances under Article 226.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act prior approval anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Lata Ratan Rokade v. The State of Maharashtra

28 Jun 2024 · A. S. Gadkari; Sharmila U. Deshmukh

The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of prior approval under the M.C.O.C. Act and denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the statutory embargo and sparing exercise of writ jurisdiction for bail in organised crime cases.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant M.C.O.C. Act prior approval anticipatory bail Section 438 Cr.P.C.