High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

Balasaheb Hanmantrao Solaskar & Ors. v. Mumbai Agriculture Produce Market Committee & Ors.

19 Mar 2024 · A.S. Chandurkar; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a communication directing criminal action against APMC directors as premature and without cause of action, affirming that criminal proceedings can be initiated without prior hearing at the investigation stage.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant writ petition criminal action Maharashtra APMC Act prematurity

Gautam Hospitality Private Limited v. The Principal Commissioner GST and Central Excise and Anr.

18 Mar 2024 · G. S. Kulkarni; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla

The Bombay High Court held that tax liability admitted in writing before the cut-off date qualifies as quantification under the SVLDRS scheme, allowing the petitioner to avail its benefits despite initial rejection.

tax petition_allowed Significant SVLDRS scheme tax quantification Finance Act 2019 Article 226

Sahana Dwellers Private Limited v. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

18 Mar 2024 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that a reassessment notice under Section 148 cannot be issued during pendency of assessment proceedings under Section 263 on the same income or issue, rendering such notice invalid.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 147 Income Tax Act Section 148 Income Tax Act Section 263 Income Tax Act reassessment notice

Vibrant Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer

18 Mar 2024 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court quashed the reopening of the petitioner’s income tax assessment for AY 2013-14, holding that mere change of opinion without tangible material or failure to disclose does not justify reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

tax petition_allowed Significant Section 148 Income Tax Act reopening of assessment failure to disclose material facts change of opinion

Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Union of India

18 Mar 2024 · B. P. Colabawalla; Somasekhar Sundaresan

The Bombay High Court held that an unsecured licensee cannot be treated as a secured creditor with priority over a mortgagee, quashing the approval of a below-reserve-price sale of mortgaged property and directing a fresh auction recognizing the mortgagee's priority.

civil appeal_allowed Significant mortgage enforcement secured creditor unsecured creditor leave and license agreement

Miss Geeta Kapur v. The State of Maharashtra

13 Mar 2024 · A. S. Gadkari; Shyam C. Chandak

The Bombay High Court quashed a criminal case under Sections 279 and 338 IPC based on a genuine settlement where the injured party accepted medical expenses and compensation but later retracted, holding that continuation would be an abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant quashing of FIR settlement Section 279 IPC Section 338 IPC

Pruthviraj Bhanudas Dhavale v. Union of India

13 Mar 2024 · A.S. Chandurkar; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court dismissed petitions challenging answer keys of the AISSEE-2024 exam, holding that courts cannot interfere with expert committee decisions on examination answers under Article 226.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant judicial review answer key objections National Testing Agency Article 226

Surekhaben Chhaniyabhai Varli v. Union of India

12 Mar 2024 · G. S. Kulkarni; Advait M. Sethna

The Bombay High Court held that the authority must pass and communicate a reasoned order on an application for appointment as a notary, and failure to do so violates natural justice and statutory requirements.

administrative other Significant Notaries Act 1952 Notaries Rules 1956 appointment as notary reasoned order

Hi Style India Pvt. Limited v. Rakesh Corporation

12 Mar 2024 · SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

The Bombay High Court dismissed a belated challenge to an arbitral award, holding that limitation under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is strict and the arbitration agreement in an unsigned invoice was valid.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 limitation Arbitration agreement validity Ex parte arbitral award

M/s. Jai Trust v. The Union of India

08 Mar 2024 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that transfer of shares by way of gift without consideration is not taxable as capital gains and quashed the reopening notice issued under Section 148 for lack of valid reason to believe income had escaped assessment.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 148 Section 45 Section 47(iii)

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax

08 Mar 2024 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 7 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that provisions for salary liabilities arising from post-year agreements and exgratia bonus payments beyond statutory limits are allowable deductions under the Income Tax Act.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act Section 37(1) Section 36(1)(ii) Payment of Bonus Act

Eknath Laxman Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra

08 Mar 2024 · A.S. Gadkari; Shyam C. Chandak
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court modified the murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC, holding the accused guilty of causing death with knowledge but without intention, and upheld concurrent sentences under the Bombay Police Act.

criminal appeal_partly_allowed Significant Section 302 IPC Section 304 IPC Part-II common intention identification of accused

Sulabai Shamrao Navasare & Ors. v. Balkrishna Namdeo Jadhav & Ors.

08 Mar 2024 · Shivkumar Dige
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal holding the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident and enhanced the compensation payable by the insurer to the claimants.

civil appeal_allowed Significant motor accident claim insurance coverage RTO records clerical error

AIGP Developers (Pune) Private Limited v. The State of Maharashtra

08 Mar 2024 · B. P. Colabawalla; Somasekhar Sundaresan

The Bombay High Court held that excavation of earth redeployed on the same land for development does not attract royalty or penalty under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, quashing the penalty imposed on the petitioner.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant minor minerals excavation royalty penalty

Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Tharwani Infrastructures

08 Mar 2024 · G. S. Kulkarni; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla

The Bombay High Court upheld the CESTAT order dismissing Revenue's appeal, holding that payment of service tax and interest before show cause notice bars invocation of extended period and penalties absent intention to evade tax.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant service tax extended period Section 73 Finance Act 1994 intention to evade

Vishwas Laxman Gadade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

08 Mar 2024 · A. S. Chandurkar; Sandeep V. Marne; Jitendra S. Jain
Cites 6 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court Larger Bench held that the first proviso to Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Transfer Act permits continuation of Group-C non-secretariat employees in the same office for six years but does not confer a right to two full tenures on the same post.

labor petition_dismissed Significant transfer of government servants tenure of posting Maharashtra Transfer Act 2005 Group-C employees

Yes Bank Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

07 Mar 2024 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 0 · Cited by 11

The Bombay High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment based on a mere change of opinion without new material is invalid, quashing the reopening notice issued against Yes Bank for deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viia).

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act 1961 Section 36(1)(viia) reopening of assessment change of opinion

S. Selvakumari Perulmal v. Kaushal Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

07 Mar 2024 · S. M. Modak

The High Court dismissed the appeal upholding acquittal due to non-issuance of statutory notice to the company, the proper drawer of the cheque, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act statutory notice drawer of cheque company liability

Poonam Rampal Verma v. Mumbai University

07 Mar 2024 · A. S. Chandurkar; Jitendra Jain
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that a University cannot deny a student’s successful course completion and withhold the final mark-sheet based on eligibility objections raised only after the course completion, directing issuance of the mark-sheet and declaration of result.

administrative petition_allowed Significant University admission eligibility criteria writ petition Article 226

Dodal Electro Instruments v. The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & Ors.

07 Mar 2024 · N.J. Jamadar · 2025:BHC-AS:40078

The Bombay High Court set aside MSEFC orders for failure to follow mandatory conciliation and arbitration procedures under the MSMED Act and Arbitration Act, remitting the matter for fresh arbitration despite availability of statutory remedies.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 Section 18 MSMED Act Section 19 MSMED Act Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996