High Court of Bombay
5,131 judgments
Kores (India) Ltd. v. Ashish Kumar Ahooja
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal against acquittal in a cheque bounce case, holding that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act and is liable to pay the amount due for goods supplied.
Dr. Mehernosh Jamshed Jassawalla v. Dr. Lalitrao Bhaskarrao Patil and Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that the Charity Commissioner can entertain removal applications against trustees under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act despite pending Change Reports under Section 22, as confirmed trusteeship status is not a precondition for such disciplinary action.
Zensar Technologies Limited v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Pune
The High Court held that rejection of a review application under Section 7B does not bar filing a substantive appeal under Section 7-I against the original order under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund Act, and dismissed the writ petition accordingly.
Infantry Security and Facilities v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(5)
The Bombay High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot amend its order under Section 254(2) based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision and that such rectification applications filed beyond six months are barred by limitation.
Pradip s/o Prabhakar Kolhe v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that public authorities cannot withhold deposits collected for event permissions without legal authority and directed refund of the amount withheld by the SDO along with interest.
Pandurang Punja Avhad v. Director, The Automotive Research Association of India
The court held that the State Government is the appropriate government for ARAI and that the petitioner, being in a supervisory capacity, is not a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, dismissing his challenge to termination.
Maharashtra Conductors Association v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court restored a writ petition withdrawn with liberty after alternative proceedings under the MSMED Act were held not maintainable but rejected the petitioner's request to convert the writ petition into a Section 34 arbitration challenge application in absence of an arbitral award.
Echjay Industries Pvt Ltd. & Ors. v. Mr. Rajendra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act for lack of credible reason to believe, emphasizing strict compliance with procedural safeguards and non-disclosure of satisfaction notes to the assessee at the search stage.
Vidya Rajaram Bandiwadekar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The High Court held that the Deputy Charity Commissioner cannot adjudicate membership validity under Section 41-A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and set aside directions restricting election participation and amendment of bye-laws based on such findings.
Shri Shripad Dwarkanath Gupte & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the grade-wise promotion policy of Artisan Staff in Naval Dockyard Mumbai, upholding the validity of combined seniority promotions and rejecting claims of prejudice and delay.
Maharashtra State Board for Technical Education v. Taramati Santosh Taji
The Bombay High Court upheld the setting aside of a probationer's stigmatic termination order issued without enquiry, directing reinstatement and completion of probation.
Eshtiyaq Ahmed Mushtaq Ahmed Qureshi v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
The Bombay High Court quashed an externment order for lack of objective material supporting the requisite subjective satisfaction under section 57(1)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Police Act, emphasizing that mere conviction is insufficient to justify externment.
Ulhas Shikshan Sanstha Classic Heights v. Laxman Dagdu Mhaske
The court upheld that a valid appointment to Head Master cannot be invalidated by a pre-appointment statement of unwillingness or non-approval by the Education Officer, and an illegal reduction in rank without following procedure is liable to be set aside.
Kores (India) Ltd. v. Ashish Kumar Ahooja
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal of Kores India Ltd., holding that the accused failed to rebut the presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoured cheques issued towards payment for goods supplied.
M/s Bhavsar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Oyster Shipmanagement Private Limited
The Bombay High Court upheld the lawful compromise between plaintiffs and developers disposing of a suit, dismissing appellants' challenge that the consent terms prejudiced their rights under a joint venture agreement.
Deelip Tatoba Raje v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court set aside a sexual offence conviction relying solely on Section 164 statements and corroborative evidence when the victim and witnesses turned hostile, emphasizing strict adherence to evidentiary principles.
Indirabai Narayan Bivalkar and Ors v. Yadav Ganpat Mhatre and Ors
The High Court set aside the MRT order restoring fixation of purchase price in favor of respondents claiming tenancy rights, holding that final rejection of tenancy claims precludes such fixation and ordering inquiry into alleged fraud and forgery.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. M.B. Kolhe
The High Court allowed MSRTC's writ petition, setting aside orders reinstating a driver dismissed for rash driving causing death and fleeing the accident spot, holding dismissal justified and penalty not shockingly disproportionate.
Shaikh Masud Ismail Shaikh & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the State Government's notifications renaming Aurangabad and Osmanabad cities and revenue areas, ruling that the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code's procedural requirements do not apply to city renaming and no fundamental rights were violated.
Imran Humayun Chandiwala v. The State of Maharashtra
The High Court allowed the writ petition restoring vehicle registration cancelled on the basis of forged documents, holding that an innocent purchaser complying with Settlement Commission orders cannot be penalized disproportionately.