High Court of Bombay

4,240 judgments

Year:

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 1

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

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

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

Firoz Mohammad Shaikh v. Commissioner of Police, Pune & Ors.

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

The Bombay High Court quashed a preventive detention order for failure to supply vital documents to the detenu, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution and rendering the detention illegal.

criminal petition_allowed Significant preventive detention Article 22(5) Constitution of India subjective satisfaction non-communication of grounds

State of Maharashtra v. Prabha Krishnaji Kamble

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

The Bombay High Court upheld the Administrative Tribunal's order quashing delayed and non-speaking disciplinary proceedings against a government employee, emphasizing the need for prompt, reasoned decisions and proportional punishment.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant disciplinary proceedings delay in enquiry misappropriation of funds compulsory retirement

Basant Kumar Bihani v. Union of India

06 Feb 2024 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ; Arif S. Doctor, J

The Bombay High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full Foreign Allowance payable to Second Secretary officers without deductions for facilities provided by the host country, quashing the reduction orders and directing payment with interest.

administrative petition_allowed Significant deputation Foreign Allowance Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation Programme ITEC

Goeffrey Peter D'souza v. The State of Maharashtra

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

The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of Prior Approval under the M.C.O.C. Act for investigation against petitioners accused of criminal intimidation linked to organised crime, dismissing their challenge to the sanction order.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Prior Approval Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act Section 506 Part II IPC Criminal intimidation

Sonika Vishnudas Kadam v. Vishnudas Haribhau Kadam & Ors.

05 Feb 2024 · Madhav J. Jamdar, J. · 2024:BHC-AS:6645

The Bombay High Court allowed transfer of Domestic Violence proceedings from Junnar to Thane under Section 407 CrPC, balancing convenience and ends of justice against accused’s right to fair trial.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant transfer of criminal case Section 407 CrPC Domestic Violence Act jurisdiction

Ravi Ashish Builders Ltd v. Shardadevi Vikramjeet Yadav

05 Feb 2024 · Kamal Khata

The Bombay High Court set aside the trial court's order allowing amendment of the plaint after trial commencement, holding that the amendment was mala fide, introduced a new case, and was not sought with due diligence.

civil appeal_allowed Significant amendment of plaint Order 6 Rule 17 CPC due diligence mala fide amendment

Shri Govind Sakli Epili & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

05 Feb 2024 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ; Arif S. Doctor, J

The Bombay High Court upheld the reversion of employees promoted without possessing AICTE-approved Diplomas, affirming strict adherence to Recruitment Rules under Article 309 for government appointments.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Recruitment Rules Article 309 Constitution Chargeman Technical Limited Departmental Competitive Examination