High Court of Bombay

5,061 judgments

Year:

M/s Bafna Udyog v. Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & Ors.

16 Jan 2024 · Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that in absence of an arbitration agreement, the Court cannot appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act despite failure of the MSME Facilitation Council to refer the dispute to arbitration under the MSMED Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) MSMED Act, 2006 statutory arbitration

Bansilal S. Kabra v. Global Trade Finance Limited & Anr

16 Jan 2024 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Bharati Dangre; Arif S. Doctor
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Bombay High Court held that the amendment to Section 202(1) CrPC mandating an inquiry before issuing process against accused residing outside jurisdiction is mandatory to prevent frivolous complaints.

criminal other Significant Section 202 CrPC mandatory inquiry process issuance accused outside jurisdiction

Sandesh Vitthal Thakur & Ors. v. The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Raigad & Ors.

16 Jan 2024 · B. P. Colabawalla; M. M. Sathaye

The Bombay High Court held that acquisition proceedings lapsed due to non-passing of Award within statutory time, as the urgency clause under Section 17 of the 1894 Act was not validly invoked without payment of 80% estimated compensation, and directed fresh compensation determination under the 2013 Act.

property appeal_allowed Significant Land Acquisition Act 1894 Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 Section 17 urgency clause Section 11A lapsing

Forum For Fast Justice v. Government of Maharashtra

15 Jan 2024 · Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Arif S. Doctor

The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the salaries and perks of MLAs, holding such matters as legislative policy decisions beyond judicial interference and censuring the petitioner for frivolous and unsavory allegations.

constitutional petition_dismissed Significant MLA salaries Public Interest Litigation Maharashtra Legislature Members Salaries and Allowance Act Judicial review

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

15 Jan 2024 · K. R. Shriram; Dr. Neela Gokhale
Cites 2 · Cited by 2

The Bombay High Court held that a reopening notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued after the limitation period prescribed by the unamended law for AY 2013-14 is barred and invalid, affirming that amended reassessment provisions apply mandatorily to notices issued post 1st April 2021.

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

The State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Bhika Dive

15 Jan 2024 · Prithviraj K. Chavan

The High Court reversed the acquittal of the accused and convicted him for kidnapping and attempting to procure a minor girl for prostitution, emphasizing that voluntary accompaniment of a minor without guardian consent amounts to kidnapping under IPC and trafficking under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant kidnapping minor lawful guardianship Section 363 IPC Section 366A IPC

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

12 Jan 2024 · A.S. Chandurkar; Firdosh P. Pooniwalla
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Bombay High Court held that the Municipal Commissioner of Delhi qualifies as a Collector under the Revenue Recovery Act, enabling recovery of toll tax dues as arrears of land revenue through validly issued recovery certificates.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 Collector definition toll tax recovery

Premlata Satish Sharma v. The State of Maharashtra

12 Jan 2024 · Anuja Prabhudessai; N. R. Borkar

The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR and charge sheet against the Applicants under Section 498-A IPC, holding that the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence and continuing the trial would be an abuse of the legal process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section 498-A IPC cruelty quashing of FIR

Mohammed Iqbal Mangu Ismail Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra

12 Jan 2024 · M. S. Karnik

The High Court acquitted the appellant for lack of evidence proving common intention under Section 34 IPC, holding that mere presence and flight are insufficient for conviction.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant common intention Section 34 IPC kidnapping attempted robbery

Devike Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Dilip Vengsarkar Foundation

12 Jan 2024 · Neela Gokhale · Gaikwad RD 2024:BHC-AS:1483

The Bombay High Court held that a non-signatory petitioner company cannot invoke arbitration under an MOU to which it is not a party, dismissing the petition for lack of privity and consent.

civil petition_dismissed Significant arbitration agreement privity of contract non-signatory locus standi

Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai City-IX

11 Jan 2024 · G. S. Kulkarni; Jitendra Jain

The Bombay High Court held that a technical defect in a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act cannot vitiate penalty proceedings at the appellate stage without the assessee proving prejudice, distinguishing the Ventura Textile Ltd. decision.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 271(1)(c) Income-tax Act Section 274 Income-tax Act Penalty notice defect Test of prejudice

Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital v. Ashoka Shetty

11 Jan 2024 · N. J. Jamadar

The Bombay High Court upheld the Labour Court's finding that an employee performing primarily manual and operational duties with limited supervisory oversight qualifies as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, dismissing the employer's writ petition challenging this status.

labor petition_dismissed Significant workman definition Industrial Disputes Act Section 2(s) supervisory duties Model Standing Orders

Vitthal Rama Pawar v. Deputy Collector (Acquisition) Raigad-Alibag

11 Jan 2024 · B. P. Colabawalla; M. M. Sathaye

The Bombay High Court held that land acquisition Awards passed without applying a valid multiplier factor notification under the 2013 Act and beyond the statutory 12-month period are invalid, quashing the Awards and directing fresh proceedings.

property appeal_allowed Significant land acquisition Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 multiplier factor compensation

Satish Buba Shetty v. Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps

11 Jan 2024 · N. J. Jamadar

The Bombay High Court allowed refund of stamp duty despite delayed cancellation of sale agreement, applying equitable principles to relieve the petitioner from strict statutory time limits due to impossibility of performance caused by developer's default and prolonged legal proceedings.

civil appeal_allowed Significant stamp duty refund Maharashtra Stamp Act 1958 section 48 proviso impossibility of performance

Nazim Abdul Rehman Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra

11 Jan 2024 · M. S. Karnik

The Bombay High Court acquitted the appellant due to material discrepancies in prosecution evidence and held that the benefit of doubt must be given where guilt is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant benefit of doubt prosecution evidence discrepancies in testimony assault

Rachana Kamlesh Shahani v. Sunshine Financial Services & Ors.

11 Jan 2024 · Dr. Neela Gokhale

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, holding that no valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties.

civil petition_dismissed arbitration agreement Section 11 Arbitration Act partnership deed consent to arbitration

Hyundai Construction Equipment India Pvt Ltd v. M/s. Saumya Mining Limited

11 Jan 2024 · Dr. Neela Gokhale

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator, holding that exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Kolkata High Court where the earliest application under the Arbitration Act was filed, notwithstanding the arbitration venue clause specifying Pune.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Section 42 jurisdiction

Ajmera Enterprises v. Dilipkumar Rameshchandra Patel

11 Jan 2024 · Rajesh S. Patil

The Bombay High Court upheld eviction of a tenant on ground of non-user, holding that a suit filed by some co-owners of an Association of Persons is maintainable and absence of electricity supply for over six months establishes non-user under Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant eviction non-user Association of Persons co-owner

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

10 Jan 2024 · Firdosh P. Pooniwalla

The Bombay High Court held that the modified Clause 96 of the contract did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement, dismissing the application for appointment of an arbitrator.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration Agreement Clause 96 GCC Final and Binding Decision Intention to Arbitrate

Kyoorius Communications Private Limited v. Datalink Multi Trading Private Limited and ors.

10 Jan 2024 · Abhay Ahuja

The Bombay High Court allowed the plaintiff's interim application to amend the plaint to correct a clerical error in the annexed loan agreement interest rate, holding that such amendments should be permitted unless they cause irreparable prejudice to the opposing party.

civil petition_allowed amendment of plaint clerical error loan agreement interest rate