High Court of Bombay
5,131 judgments
Rahul Gorakhanath Kadam; Nilesh Shivaji Patil v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the exclusion of powerlifting from sports reservation under the 2016 Government Resolution, dismissing petitioners' claims based on promissory estoppel and Article 14.
Sandip Suresh Mali & Ors. v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission & Ors.
The High Court dismissed the petitioners' challenge to the PSI recruitment process, holding that delayed challenges and interference in subsequent recruitments are impermissible under Article 226.
Sanjeev Malhotra v. SBI Global Factors Ltd. & Anr.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging the arbitral award upholding the guarantor's liability for enhanced credit facilities and rejecting delay and procedural objections.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. M/s. Tata Capital Ltd.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the Assessing Officer must record cogent reasons of dissatisfaction before disallowing expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.
Rajan Garg v. Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that the IBC moratorium does not stay slum rehabilitation acquisition proceedings under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, prioritizing slum dwellers' welfare over corporate insolvency protections.
Kiran Ramjan Machare v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed a preventive detention order due to unexplained delay breaking the necessary live link between alleged illegal activities and the need for detention.
Raosaheb Damu Ghule v. The State of Maharashtra
The High Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges due to failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt under the stringent principles governing circumstantial evidence.
Jehangir Soli Sorabjee v. M/s. Warden and Company (India) Private Limited
The High Court set aside the order allowing recall of a witness after long delay, holding that Order 18 Rule 17 CPC must be sparingly used to clarify doubts and not to fill omissions or cause delay in a suit pending since 1986.
Nav Chetna Charitable Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition directing condonation of 799-day delay in filing Form 9A under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the discretionary power to mitigate genuine hardship and rejecting a hyper-technical approach.
Babubhai Shankarlal Mehta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that failure by the Planning Authority to take effective acquisition steps within statutory timelines under Section 127 of the MRTP Act results in lapse of land reservation, entitling the landowner to notification of lapse and development rights.
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.