High Court of Bombay
4,240 judgments
M/s. Edunetwork Private Limited v. The Regional Provident Fund
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR for alleged EPF misappropriation for non-compliance with mandatory inquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act and procedural safeguards for start-ups.
Sopan Trambak Wani v. Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that failure by authorities to acquire reserved land within the statutory period under the MRTP Act results in lapsing of reservation, entitling the landowner to develop the property.
Anirudh Arun Bhandarkar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR under Section 306 IPC against the applicants, holding that mere allegations of harassment without evidence of proximate instigation do not constitute abetment of suicide.
Samrat Span Realties v. The Registrar of Firms, Pune
The Bombay High Court held that expulsion of a partner constitutes a change in the firm's constitution that must be recorded by the Registrar of Firms, and disputes over expulsion are to be resolved by courts, not the Registrar.
M/s Bafna Udyog v. Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & Ors.
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.
Bansilal S. Kabra v. Global Trade Finance Limited & Anr
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.
Sandesh Vitthal Thakur & Ors. v. The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Raigad & Ors.
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.
Forum For Fast Justice v. Government of Maharashtra
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.
The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
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.
The State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Bhika Dive
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.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
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.
Premlata Satish Sharma v. The State of Maharashtra
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.
Mohammed Iqbal Mangu Ismail Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra
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.
Devike Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Dilip Vengsarkar Foundation
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.
Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai City-IX
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.
Mumbai- 400 012 v. U/s. 84 of the Multi State Co-0perative Societies Act
The Bombay High Court held that the MSMED Act Notification dated 29 May 2015 is a non-binding guideline and non-compliance thereof does not invalidate NPA classification or SARFAESI recovery proceedings against MSMEs.
Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital v. Ashoka Shetty
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.
Vitthal Rama Pawar v. Deputy Collector (Acquisition) Raigad-Alibag
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.
Satish Buba Shetty v. Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps
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.
Nazim Abdul Rehman Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra
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.