High Court of Bombay

5,131 judgments

Year:

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd v. The State of Maharashtra

16 Feb 2024 · M.S. Sonak; Advait M. Sethna
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors must be heard by the NCLT where insolvency proceedings against the principal corporate debtor are pending, setting aside the DRT's order and directing transfer of proceedings to the NCLT.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 National Company Law Tribunal Debt Recovery Tribunal Personal guarantor insolvency

Kinjal Jayesh Mehta v. Disha Jimit Sanghvi

14 Feb 2024 · Sharmila U. Deshmukh

The Bombay High Court held that a married sister-in-law residing separately in her own matrimonial house does not have a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person under the D.V. Act and cannot be made a respondent in a domestic violence application.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 domestic relationship shared household Section 2(f) D.V. Act

Raviprakash Chaturdeo Patel v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

14 Feb 2024 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Arif S. Doctor

The Bombay High Court held that CIDCO was not obligated to accept the highest bid in its e-tender and that its rejection of the petitioner's bid was neither arbitrary nor unfair, dismissing the writ petition.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant e-tender highest bidder arbitrariness natural justice

Shivraj Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. v. Mextech Realty Pvt. Ltd.

14 Feb 2024 · Amit Borkar

The Bombay High Court held that the statutory restriction on shareholding under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act does not apply to housing societies governed by Chapter XIII-B, and dismissed the petition challenging membership conferment to a company purchasing multiple bungalows.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 Section 28 Chapter XIII-B housing societies

Ashok Chaganlal Thakkar v. National Faceless Assessment Centre

13 Feb 2024 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale

The Bombay High Court held that rural agricultural land classification under Section 2(14)(iii) does not require actual agricultural activity and remanded the matter for fresh assessment after proper verification of evidence and mandatory personal hearing.

tax appeal_allowed Significant agricultural land capital asset capital gains tax Section 2(14)(iii)

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Dastagir Naalsab Mulani

13 Feb 2024 · Sandeep V. Marne

The Bombay High Court held that the disciplinary authority lacked power under the original Regulation 7 to impose cumulative effect on penalties of withholding increments or reduction of pay, dismissing the MSRTC's writ petitions challenging Labour Court orders.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Discipline and Appeal Procedure Regulation 7 withholding increments reduction of pay

Nusli N. Wadia; Maureen N. Wadia; Rajesh Batra v. Bastion Constructions

13 Feb 2024 · A. S. Gadkari; Kamal Khata
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court dismissed the application to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage in a specific performance suit, holding that possession is ancillary and the application was an abuse of process intended to delay the decree.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Order 41 Rule 27 CPC additional evidence specific performance possession

Ashish Namdeo Sonkamble v. State of Maharashtra

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

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that a litigant's reliance on an absent Advocate constitutes sufficient cause to condone delay and restore a dismissed application before the Administrative Tribunal.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant condonation of delay restoration application Administrative Tribunal litigant reliance on Advocate

Shendra Advisory Services P. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

09 Feb 2024 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale

The Bombay High Court held that share premium received on issuance of shares is a capital receipt not taxable as income under the Income Tax Act, and non-compliance with Companies Act provisions does not convert it into taxable income.

tax appeal_allowed Significant share premium capital receipt income tax Section 68

Ceat Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, City IV

09 Feb 2024 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale · (2023) 153 taxmann.com 523 (Bombay)
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that interest under Section 244A(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act is payable on the entire refund amount from the first day of the assessment year if the refund exceeds 10% of the tax determined on regular assessment, rejecting the Department's attempt to apply the proviso selectively to refund components.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 244A Interest Income Tax Act 1961 Refund Interest Advance Tax

M/s. Sesa Sterlite Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

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

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging MIDC's lawful termination of lease agreements for industrial plots due to non-commencement of activities and abandonment of the project despite a stop work order.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant lease termination industrial plot allotment stop work order natural justice

Leena Dashrath Gavkar v. The State of Maharashtra

09 Feb 2024 · Madhav J. Jamdar
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court upheld bail granted to the accused in a matrimonial dispute, holding that bail cancellation requires cogent reasons beyond factual disputes and no such grounds existed here.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant bail cancellation false promise of marriage consensual relationship Section 376(2)(n) IPC

Nikheelchandra Anil Zode v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

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

The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR alleging offences under Sections 186, 342, 353, 498A, and 506 IPC in a matrimonial dispute, holding that the allegations did not prima facie constitute any offence and continuing investigation would be an abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498A IPC

The State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Anil Pinto

09 Feb 2024 · Bharati Dangre
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The High Court upheld the conviction of a surgeon for criminal medical negligence under Section 304A IPC, emphasizing the requirement of gross negligence and applying the Bolam test to assess professional conduct.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant medical negligence Section 304A IPC gross negligence criminal liability

Hashim Abdul Razak v. State of Maharashtra

08 Feb 2024 · S. M. Modak
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court reversed the acquittal under Section 138 NI Act, holding that authorization of a company representative can be proved by affidavit and certified true copies without producing originals if no timely objection is raised.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act authorization of company representative proof of documents board resolution

Niranjan Sanjay Gotarane v. Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad & Ors.

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

The Bombay High Court quashed a preventive detention order due to unexplained delay in deciding the detainee's representation, violating Article 22(5) constitutional safeguards.

constitutional petition_allowed Significant preventive detention Article 22(5) representation delay constitutional safeguards

Rajuram Sawaji Purohit v. The Shandar Interior Private Ltd.

07 Feb 2024 · R.I. Chagla
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court set aside an arbitral award dismissing a refund claim on limitation grounds, holding that time spent prosecuting a bona fide winding-up petition before the wrong forum is excluded under Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 14 Limitation Act winding-up petition limitation period exclusion Section 34 Arbitration Act

Nienke Leida Hulshof v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

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

The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition directing the return of a minor Dutch child to her mother in the Netherlands, emphasizing the child's best interest over foreign custody orders and illegal detention in India.

family petition_allowed Significant habeas corpus child custody foreign court orders best interest of child

Janaki Suresh v. Union of India & Ors.

07 Feb 2024 · G. S. Kulkarni; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court appointed the petitioner wife as legal guardian of her comatose husband under its writ jurisdiction, filling a legal vacuum in guardianship laws for medically incapacitated adults.

civil petition_allowed Significant legal guardian vegetative state parens patriae Article 226

Bharat Pukhraj Chaudhary v. The State of Maharashtra

07 Feb 2024 · Nitin W. Sambre; Manjusha Deshpande
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution, rendering the arrest illegal and entitling the accused to bail.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant grounds of arrest Article 22(1) Constitution of India Section 50 CrPC illegal arrest