High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Sarfaraz S. Furniturewalla v. Afshan Sharfali Ashok Kumar
The Bombay High Court held that hardship or rehabilitation allowances paid as 'transit rent' during redevelopment are capital receipts not subject to TDS under Section 194(I) of the Income Tax Act, and interest on amounts withdrawn from the Small Causes Court is at that court's discretion.
Shilpa Santosh Salvi v. Pankaj Shobhnath Yadav & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of a caste certificate issued by the Mumbai Suburban authority, ruling that jurisdiction depends on residence at the relevant deemed date and that the certificate was lawfully issued after due scrutiny.
M/s. Sateri Builders and Developers LLP v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority
The High Court upheld the AGRC’s order setting aside the acceptance of an incomplete slum redevelopment proposal that excluded eligible occupants, emphasizing strict compliance with statutory consent and procedural requirements under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act.
Zainab Rafiullah Shaikh v. Puthenveedu Joseph Mathew
The Bombay High Court upheld the appointment of a Court Receiver over disputed commercial premises, dismissing the appellant's challenge that the appointment was unjustified and confirming that a trespasser cannot resist such appointment by invoking equitable tests.
Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court held that an application filed before retrospective amendments barring such applications is a vested right and cannot be invalidated, quashing eligibility restrictions imposed by CBDT notifications beyond statutory provisions.
M. H. Patel v. Virendra Babubhai Dalal
The High Court held that de novo trial under Section 326 CrPC does not apply to verification under Section 202 CrPC and remanded the matter for reconsideration without requiring fresh verification, clarifying that offences under Section 500 IPC are not triable summarily.
‘K’ Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of additional fees levied under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 for delayed applications, holding such fees are authorized regulatory fees under Section 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and not penalties.
Sharad Devidas Shelke v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the disqualification of a candidate for incorrectly stating his educational qualification in the recruitment application, emphasizing the candidate's responsibility for accuracy and refusing to disturb the completed selection process.
Soheb Sageerali Khan v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that cancellation of a student's improved re-examination result for failure to collect the marksheet within six months is unjustified and directed issuance of the revised marksheet upon payment of prescribed charges.
Amol Bhaskar Sulakhe v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR under Sections 504 and 506 IPC for lack of prima facie offence but allowed other charges related to wrongful occupation to proceed to trial in a family business dispute.
Rajeev Ruia v. Mahesh Vennalakanti
The Bombay High Court upheld the Family Court's finding that the husband is the sole owner of the jointly registered flat, rejecting the wife's son's belated claim of 50% ownership under the Benami Transactions Act due to lack of pleadings and evidence.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Ganesh Gopinath Rane
The Bombay High Court set aside the Industrial Court's interim stay on a promotion and transfer order, holding that absent prima facie malafide, transfer orders under express transfer liability cannot be interfered with.
Jilajeet Satyanarayan Pandey & Ors. v. Chandrabali Rajnarayan Shukla & Ors.
The Bombay High Court partly allowed the revision to modify an eviction decree based on bonafide requirement, ordering partial eviction where only one of the landlord's sons continued to need the premises.
Sneha Sunil Patil v. Suhel Shaukat Shaikh
The Bombay High Court partly allowed the motor accident claim appeal, enhancing compensation by considering actual salary components, increasing future prospects, and awarding loss of domestic services to the legal heirs.
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Interio Division v. Shivkranti Kamgar Sanghatana
The Bombay High Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's finding that certain employees performing manual and skilled work belong to the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, dismissing the writ petition challenging their status.
MFE Formwork Technology SDN.BHD. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
The Bombay High Court quashed reopening notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2016-17, holding that reopening based solely on a set-aside Section 263 order and change of opinion is impermissible and lacks jurisdiction.
The Administrator Nashik, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. v. Sham Nariman Dumasia and Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the order directing the petitioner to pay enhanced compensation with interest for land acquired in 1982-83, dismissed the delayed review application, and ordered disbursement to claimants except those not entitled by law.
M/s. Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed penalty and royalty imposed under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code on earth excavated during a public sewerage project, holding that reuse of excavated earth on the same plot without commercial exploitation does not attract royalty liability.
Dentsu Network Advertising Private Limited v. Conceptual Pictures Worldwide Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising from a purchase order containing an arbitration clause, leaving the question of non-signatory joinder to the arbitral tribunal.
Pankaj Madaan v. HealthAssure Private Limited
The Bombay High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration Act despite a procedural error in the application, rejecting the Respondent's delay tactics and ordering costs.