High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Purushottam Prabhakar Chavan v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (GST)
The Bombay High Court held that a secured creditor with a registered security interest under the SARFAESI Act has priority over tax authorities' claims, entitling the auction purchaser to a clear title free of tax attachment encumbrances.
Kamladevi Raychand Shah v. Bhupendra Yashwant Ajinkya
The High Court upheld the dismissal of a suit as infructuous under its inherent powers due to dissolution of a defendant firm and merger of rights, rejecting delayed amendments and holding that the cause of action had disappeared.
Shalaka Projects Private Limited v. K.K.B. Properties and Another
The Bombay High Court held that a sale of property made more than two years before insolvency adjudication is valid against the Official Assignee, affirming the separate legal entity of a company and rejecting unsubstantiated allegations of collusion.
Shri Kshitij Pravin Desai & Ors. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Pune & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging stamp duty adjudication on a sale deed, holding that acceptance and registration preclude appeal under Section 53(1A) and that valuation based on non-agricultural use was justified.
Shireen Kersi Dubash v. Kersi Jai Dubash
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal seeking to set aside a 1987 divorce decree, holding that the appellant's long delay and participation in the decree's procurement estopped her from challenging its validity.
Burzin Manek Daver v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court quashed the Look Out Circular against the petitioner in a fraud investigation, holding that mere FIR registration does not justify LOC without specific grounds and no extension was shown beyond 12 months.
DHD Infracon Pvt Ltd v. Public Work Department (West) Division
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging tender conditions in a government road project, holding that judicial interference is limited absent arbitrariness or mala fide, especially where petitioners failed to participate or purchase tender documents.
Sagar Maruti Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that the petitioner’s detention was lawful as he was produced before the magistrate within twenty four hours of arrest, dismissing the writ petition challenging illegal detention and remand.
Nimish Chandulal Shah and Ors. v. Central Depository Services (India) Ltd.
The Bombay High Court set aside an arbitral award rejecting investors' claim against CDSL on forum shopping grounds, holding that intervention in regulatory proceedings does not bar independent arbitration claims under statutory indemnity.
Nitin Laxmidas Dama v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that the financial credentials of partners can satisfy a partnership firm's eligibility in tenders and declined to interfere with the allotment made to Respondent No.6, dismissing the petition challenging the tender process.
Starlift Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Alba Asia Pvt. Ltd. and others
The Bombay High Court dismissed the contempt petition against company directors for non-deposit of a court-ordered sum, holding no willful disobedience amid financial difficulties and COVID-19 impact, clarifying the scope of Section 12(5) of the Contempt of Courts Act and self-operating clauses in court orders.
M/s. Poonam Builders v. ACIT, Central Circle - 8(4), Mumbai & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed a reassessment notice under Section 148 as barred by the proviso to Section 147 since the issue was already under appeal before the CIT(A).
Govind Laxman Bawkar v. Mrs. Pramila Prakash Sodye & Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed a senior citizen's petition under the Senior Citizens Act directing his children to vacate his residential premises, holding that children have no vested right to reside in parents' property during their lifetime and the Tribunal must protect senior citizens from harassment.
HDFC Bank Limited v. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait BSC
The Bombay High Court set aside the DRAT's remand order, directing it to decide the appeals on merits without further remand, emphasizing that appellate courts must not routinely remand matters when sufficient material exists to decide issues including jurisdiction.
Gramastha Mandal Kundevahal v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that the Land Acquisition Officer lacked jurisdiction to decide apportionment disputes under Section 19-C(4) of the Maharashtra Highways Act, set aside the illegal disbursal of compensation, and directed referral of the dispute to the Principal Civil Court.
Navin Popatlal Shah & Nitin Sundraji Shah v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the State's power under Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to impose a minimum price condition based on current Ready Reckoner rates for transfer of tribal land to non-tribals, dismissing the petition challenging the valuation date and price condition.
Milind Balaso Gadhave v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court allowed partial clubbing and transfer of multiple criminal cases against the petitioner to avoid multiplicity of trials and delay, while rejecting transfer of cases involving multiple accused and investors.
Global Waste Management Cell Pvt. Ltd. v. Panvel Municipal Corporation
The Bombay High Court upheld the rejection of a bidder's technical bid for failing to meet the tender's experience criteria, ruling that multiple contracts cannot be aggregated to constitute a single project under the tender conditions.
Ved Prakash Arya v. The State of Maharashtra & The Competent Authority
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal of Ved Prakash Arya, holding that the sale deed must be executed in the name of the partnership firm M/s. Arya Lusters Associates, not the appellant individually, reaffirming the finality of auction orders and prohibiting change of party status post-finality.
Aniruddha Ganesh Pathak v. Registrar General
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the removal of a judicial officer for proven misconduct, holding that disciplinary authority’s decision under proper procedure is not liable to interference under Article 226.