High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Netlink Solutions India Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition seeking interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for breach of non-compete clauses due to petitioner’s delay, suppression of material documents, and insufficient evidence of respondents’ involvement.
Manas Shelters Pvt. Ltd. v. Vivek Madhavlal Pittie
The Bombay High Court vacated a nine-year-old interim injunction in a redevelopment dispute, holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate continued readiness and willingness to perform the development agreement, justifying relief under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 CPC.
wp1042021 3b4b6c46
The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR under Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504, and 34 IPC for lack of prima facie case, holding that mere harassment without proximate instigation does not constitute abetment of suicide.
Telex Advertising Pvt Ltd v. Central Railway
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of arbitration appointment clauses providing for arbitrators from panels of serving or retired Railway officers, clarifying their eligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act and emphasizing adherence to contractual and statutory procedures for appointment.
Prajakta Rajendra Kuchekar v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order, holding that a candidate cannot claim reservation benefits under a category-specific option not applicable to her and that merit-based selection prevails.
Irfan Gafur Khot v. Ramesh Mahadev Bandal
The Bombay High Court held that once the Returning Officer declares election results by form E-17 under the 2014 Rules, he becomes functus officio and cannot modify the result, directing aggrieved candidates to seek remedy via election petitions under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
Shankar Chhana Vasava; Ashwin Ramnaresh Sinh; Chetan Makan Patel; Avdesh Sampat Yadav v. The State (Union Territory) Dadra and Nagar Haveli
The Bombay High Court allowed revision and acquitted four accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove assault beyond reasonable doubt due to improper appreciation of evidence, unexplained FIR delay, and non-examination of corroborative witnesses.
Latha Mahalingam v. Central Bureau of Investigation
The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal for release of seized and invested funds not linked to the offence, holding the trial Court was not functus officio and directing refund subject to bond.
Dinesh Ganesh Indre and Others v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that refusal of sanction under MCOCA terminates the extended investigation period, and an application for default bail filed thereafter vests an indefeasible right in the accused, which cannot be defeated by pendency of the application or subsequent charge-sheet filing.
Kailash Kashinathrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that pendency of departmental enquiry or criminal proceedings cannot arbitrarily deny an in-service medical officer's fundamental right to pursue higher education and directed issuance of No Objection Certificate for NEET PG.
Mrs. Shabana Iqbal Shaikh v. The Commissioner of Police, Pune City & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed a preventive detention order due to unexplained delay in considering the detenue's representation, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Krishna Mahadu Gasti v. Mahesh Shamrao Deshmukh
The Bombay High Court held that the School Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide seniority disputes absent prior adjudication by the Education Officer and upheld the promotion of petitioner no. 1 based on an undisputed seniority list under MEPS Rules.
Rohit Vishnu Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra and Maharashtra Public Service Commission
The Bombay High Court upheld the MPSC's guideline restricting scribes' qualifications to one step below the candidate's minimum qualification, affirming the balance between reasonable accommodation and examination integrity.
Glider Buildcon Realtors Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that executive dispensation of statutory conditions in Development Control Regulations without following the mandatory amendment procedure under the MRTP Act is invalid, upholding the Monitoring Committee's directions enforcing mill redevelopment obligations.
Ravindra Hemraj Dhangekar v. District Collector Pune & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that arbitrary cancellation of sanctioned municipal development works without valid reasons violates Article 14 and quashed the impugned Government Resolutions cancelling such works.
Sachin Madhavrao Tupe v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of a suo motu enquiry report under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act initiated on complaints including those by a legal heir, dismissing the petition challenging the enquiry for lack of jurisdiction and prematurity.
Kaushal Arvind Thakker v. Jyoti Kaushal Thakker
The Bombay High Court upheld the applicability of the DV Act to foreign citizens with past domestic relationship, dismissed the revision petition challenging reliefs granted for domestic violence including maintenance, compensation, and return of stridhan.
Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd v. Kataria Sales Corporation
The Bombay High Court held that after arbitration proceedings have commenced upon initial invocation, a fresh notice under Section 21 is not required to seek appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6), even if the prior award was set aside due to unilateral appointment.
Indian Overseas Bank v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
The Bombay High Court held that a secured creditor with a prior registered security interest under the SARFAESI Act has priority over statutory tax charges under the MVAT Act, quashing attachment orders by tax authorities that interfered with enforcement of the mortgage.
Mast. Gaurav Sonawane v. National Testing Agency
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging JEE (Main) results, holding that no re-evaluation is permissible absent statutory provision and the petitioner’s grievance was time-barred.