High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

28 Feb 2024 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 2 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that the reassessment notice issued for AY 2014-15 on 31st July 2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is barred by limitation and quashed it, rejecting the Revenue's contention of extended limitation under TOLA and relating back theory.

tax petition_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 148 Section 148A Section 149

Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Maharashtra Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

28 Feb 2024 · G. S. Kulkarni; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Cites 0 · Cited by 6

The High Court held that the MSME Facilitation Council can act as both conciliator and arbitrator under the MSME Act despite Section 80 of the Arbitration Act, and dismissed the writ petition challenging this dual role.

civil petition_dismissed Significant MSME Act Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 18 MSME Act Section 80 Arbitration Act

Sudha Banarasilal Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and K.P. Shankaran Nair

28 Feb 2024 · A.S. Gadkari; Shyam C. Chandak

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition to quash FIR alleging forgery and cheating in flat allotment, holding that disputed factual issues pending trial cannot be decided in writ or inherent jurisdiction.

criminal petition_dismissed quashing of FIR Article 226 Constitution Section 482 CrPC forgery

Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd and Anr. v. Joyce Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

27 Feb 2024 · Abhay Ahuja

The Bombay High Court allowed amendments to plaints before trial commencement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, holding that such amendments clarifying admissions do not alter the cause of action and should be liberally permitted to ensure effective adjudication.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Order 6 Rule 17 CPC Amendment of pleadings Commencement of trial Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief

Mohan Velji Patel & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

27 Feb 2024 · A. S. Gadkari; Shyam C. Chandak

The Bombay High Court quashed a delayed FIR alleging cheating under Section 420 IPC, holding that no prima facie offence was made out and the complaint was an abuse of process of law.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR Section 420 IPC Section 482 CrPC Article 226 Constitution

Nikhil Girish Patt; Ilesh Shah; Sooraj Kumar Tayade v. Central Bureau of Investigation; State of Maharashtra

27 Feb 2024 · M. S. Karnik
Cites 0 · Cited by 7

The Bombay High Court upheld the trial court's power under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to add an aggravated forgery charge at the late stage of trial, dismissing the petitioners' challenge that such addition caused prejudice.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant Section 216 Cr.P.C. alteration of charge addition of charge aggravated forgery

Pen Municipal Council v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

27 Feb 2024 · Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court quashed PF assessment and attachment orders against Municipal Councils for non-payment of Contractors’ PF dues, directing fresh inquiry with proper summoning of Contractors and adherence to natural justice.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 7A Section 8F principal employer liability

Chandrakant Dattu Mhatre & Ors. v. Nandkumar Moreshwar Patil & Ors.

27 Feb 2024 · Milind N. Jadhav

The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 227 condoning a two-year delay in filing an application for restoration of an appeal, emphasizing the Court's supervisory jurisdiction to do substantial justice and protect the statutory right of appeal.

civil petition_allowed Significant condonation of delay restoration of appeal Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction

Abhishek Ajit Chavan v. Gauri Abhishek Chavan

27 Feb 2024 · Rajesh S. Patil

The Bombay High Court dismissed the husband's writ petition challenging the Family Court's order denying modification of interim custody of the minor daughter, affirming that the child's welfare is paramount.

family petition_dismissed Significant custody minor child welfare of child Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

M/s. Visen Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane – II

27 Feb 2024 · M. S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal against the Tribunal's order disallowing inadmissible Cenvat Credit availed without goods entering the factory and upheld recovery with penalty, holding no substantial question of law arose.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Cenvat Credit Central Excise Act, 1944 Reversal of Credit Penalty

Harsh Mehta v. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors.

27 Feb 2024 · M. S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain · 2024:BHC-OS:19524-DB

The Bombay High Court upheld SEBI's exemption of delisting pursuant to IBC-approved resolution plans from its Delisting Regulations, dismissing challenges to the regulation and related NCLT order as intra vires and consistent with insolvency law.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant SEBI Delisting Regulations ultra-vires Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code resolution plan

Vikram Ramesh Rughani v. The State of Maharashtra

26 Feb 2024 · Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that imprisonment for maintenance default under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. is limited to a maximum of 12 months per application, quashing a 47-month sentence imposed without adhering to this limit.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance arrears Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 imprisonment limit

Subham Suresh Misale v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

26 Feb 2024 · A. S. Chandurkar; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the appointment of a candidate with higher merit and valid experience, holding that preference for a plumber course certificate applies only when candidates are equally placed.

administrative petition_dismissed recruitment preference clause experience certificate merit list

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Mumbai Metro One Private Limited

26 Feb 2024 · Sandeep V. Marne
Cites 6 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court heard a Section 34 challenge to a majority arbitral award granting MMOPL damages for delays and increased costs in the Mumbai Metro-1 project, with the petitioner MMRDA contesting liability and quantum, while the respondent supported the award's detailed findings.

commercial_arbitration other Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 challenge Concession Agreement Right of Way delay

The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) v. M/s. B. Arunkumar Trading Ltd.

23 Feb 2024 · K. R. Shriram; Sharmila U. Deshmukh

The Bombay High Court held that payments for storage tanks do not constitute rent under Section 194I of the Income Tax Act, and TDS on such payments is deductible under Section 194C, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Section 194I Income Tax Act Section 194C Income Tax Act Tax Deduction at Source Storage charges

Gufran Suleman Qureshi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

23 Feb 2024 · G. S. Patel; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court held that the Municipal Corporation cannot arbitrarily refuse further redevelopment permissions based on unchanged road width after initially granting permission, applying promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, and principles of administrative law.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant promissory estoppel legitimate expectation Wednesbury unreasonableness proportionality

Samita Rajendra Patil v. The State of Maharashtra

23 Feb 2024 · A. S. Chandurkar; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a coordinate bench order permitting bridge construction, holding that allegations of fraud and suppression of facts were unsubstantiated and the proper remedy was review or appeal, not collateral writ petition.

environmental / administrative petition_dismissed Significant Article 226 Constitution of India coordinate bench order suppression of facts fraud

Shrikant Chimaji Jahagirdar v. State of Maharashtra

23 Feb 2024 · M. S. Karnik

The Bombay High Court acquitted a public servant accused of corruption, holding that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and mere circumstantial evidence without direct proof is insufficient.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7 PC Act Section 13(1)(d) PC Act demand and acceptance

~ v. ~

23 Feb 2024 · G.S. Patel; Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court upheld MHADA's No Objection Certificate and the SRA's authority in a slum redevelopment dispute, dismissing petitions challenging redevelopment orders and emphasizing no fundamental right to trespass on public land.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Slum Rehabilitation Authority Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 No Objection Certificate MHADA

Bahar Infocons Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-2 & Ors.

23 Feb 2024 · G. S. Kulkarni; Somasekhar Sundaresan · 2024:BHC-OS:14829-DB

The Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner’s revisional powers under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act can be exercised to rectify inadvertent double taxation errors even after the time limit for filing revised returns has expired, allowing the petitioner’s revision applications.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 264 Income Tax Act revision application revised return double taxation