High Court of Bombay
5,061 judgments
Raosaheb Murlidhar Ahire and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
The High Court quashed criminal process against applicants in a dispute essentially civil in nature, holding such proceedings to be an abuse of the Court's process.
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court allowed the MMRDA's writ petition permitting construction of Metro Line-5 involving limited mangrove cutting, holding that requisite environmental and forest clearances with conditions justify proceeding in public interest.
Uma Satish Vairat & Ors. v. Sangita Tanaji Nanavare & Ors.
The High Court held that an Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from liability based on untested police statements and directed it to pay compensation in a fatal motor accident claim.
Himalay Manohar Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed the termination of a contractor's license for disproportionate and unreasonable administrative action taken without hearing or relevant grounds.
Om Vishwashanti CHS v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of a developer and refusal to sanction building plans in a slum rehabilitation project, holding that such private contractual disputes are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd. v. Axis Bank Limited & Ors.
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act directing Axis Bank to deposit and retain title deeds to preserve the subject matter of arbitration despite Axis Bank not being a party to the arbitration agreement.
Surjit Singh Arora v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority
The Bombay High Court upheld the termination of a developer’s appointment for inordinate delay and breaches under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, emphasizing the authority’s power to ensure timely slum rehabilitation.
Arvind Sethi v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court discharged the accused bank official from criminal charges due to lack of prima facie evidence of active involvement despite procedural lapses in loan sanctioning.
The Pashmina Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Latif Mohamed Hassambhoy & Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal, holding that restrictive covenants limiting construction height are enforceable only if they secure beneficial enjoyment of adjoining property, and dismissed the suit for failure to prove such harm.
General Motors Employees Union v. General Motors India Private Limited
The Bombay High Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's Award permitting General Motors India to close its Talegaon plant, holding that timelines under Section 25-O are directory and substantial accumulated losses justify closure.
Central Bureau of Investigation v. R. Bhuvaneswari & Anr.
The High Court held that sanction for prosecution once refused by the competent authority on given materials cannot be reconsidered without fresh evidence, and accordingly upheld discharge of accused for lack of valid sanction.
Elster Instromet B.V. v. Mrunal Gandhi
The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral injunction enforcing a non-compete clause against a joint venturer and its affiliates, applying partnership principles to sustain obligations beyond the contract term.
Dilip Rangnath Nalwad v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that limitation for filing an Original Application before the Administrative Tribunal must be calculated from the last representation and set aside the Tribunal's dismissal on limitation grounds, remitting the matter for merits consideration.
Shrikant Annappa Shinde & Ors. v. Khiraling Basavannappa Shingshetty & Ors.
The High Court dismissed the appeal holding that hypothecation of a vehicle with a bank does not shift insurance liability to the bank, and the vehicle owner remains liable for compensation.
Nandkishor Eknath Kothawade v. State of Maharashtra
The High Court held that once a Magistrate takes cognizance and examines the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., ordering investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and registration of FIR is illegal and quashed the impugned order and FIR.
Ashwini Kumar Sharma v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court allowed a physically disabled accused to attend the pronouncement of judgment via video conferencing, balancing procedural requirements with the accused’s medical condition.
Zeba Mohasin Pathan v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that under the DV Act, a mother-in-law can file a complaint against her daughter-in-law, but the father and brother of the daughter-in-law do not fall within the Act's definition of 'respondent' and thus the complaint against them is not maintainable.
Rajeev Kumar Damodarprasad Bhadani & Ors. v. The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that MSEDCL's possession of land for an electricity sub-station without complying with land acquisition laws and paying compensation is unlawful, and electricity regulations do not override land acquisition statutes.
Santosh Kantilal Kharva v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court reduced the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC for a killing in a sudden fight without premeditation.
wp17582023 4fb309b3
The High Court held that eviction orders under Section 81-B of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act require a reasoned quasi-judicial inquiry with evidence and fresh show-cause notice, setting aside unreasoned orders based on invalid notices.