Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited v. Amit Chaturvedi and Ors.
The Supreme Court held that a defunct Scheme of Arrangement under the Companies Act cannot bar initiation of insolvency proceedings under the IBC, affirming the overriding effect of the IBC and allowing the CIRP to proceed.
S. Rajendran v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition)
The Supreme Court held that challenges to attachment orders under the Benami Act cannot be entertained by insolvency tribunals under the IBC, affirming the exclusive jurisdiction of Benami Act authorities and dismissing the appeals.
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Kanika & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be reduced by amounts equivalent to pay and allowances received under the 2006 Rules to avoid double recovery, and that a High Court cannot alter substantive compensation via clarification applications.
Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. v. Ecstasy Realty Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that an insolvency petition under Section 7 of the IBC must be admitted upon proof of default in financial debt, and that unilateral restructuring without prescribed consent does not prevent default or bind all debenture holders.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Ors.
The Supreme Court held that the insurer of the truck is liable for the claimant's injury as the truck driver negligently failed to maintain a safe distance from the trailer, reversing the High Court's order.
Jolly Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Surendra Nath Jolly
The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award dismissing specific performance of a land transfer MOU held to be terminated due to an injunction rendering performance impossible, affirming the contract as contingent and the termination valid.
Anirudha Manohar Khopade and others v. Union of India and others
Section 94 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 does not apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956, and co-owners cannot compel acquisition of entire buildings under that provision.
Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ijimima – Imitation Jewellery Market Co-operative Society
The Bombay High Court upheld the Competent Authority's order granting unilateral deemed conveyance under MOFA, holding that promoters must convey full title notwithstanding contractual leasehold clauses and procedural objections.
Sunita Bapu Jagtap v. The Chairman, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that an MSRTC employee deputed to supervise traffic who died of COVID-19 is entitled to Rs.50 lakh compensation under the relevant circulars, overruling a narrow interpretation limiting benefits to drivers and conductors.
Sitaram Kuchhbedia v. Vimal Rana
The Supreme Court restored the murder conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, holding that multiple grievous injuries inflicted by an unlawful assembly with intent to cause death attract the offence of murder and vicarious liability applies to all members.
Shobha Namdev Sonavane v. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane
The Supreme Court set aside bail granted to accused in a murder and SC/ST atrocity case, holding that members of an unlawful assembly are equally liable and bail cannot be granted on extraneous grounds such as pending civil disputes.
Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of complaint proceedings under the PCPNDT Act against a radiologist, emphasizing strict enforcement of record-keeping and procedural compliance to prevent female foeticide.
Amad Noormamad Bakali v. State of Gujarat
The Supreme Court upheld convictions under the Customs Act based on voluntary confessional statements corroborated by independent evidence but reduced sentences considering the appellants' age and time served.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. G.D’souza & Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone V Mumbai
The Bombay High Court quashed the Human Rights Commission's order directing compensation for road accident injuries, holding that the Commission cannot impose binding compensation without conclusive evidence of negligence and that such recommendations are subject to judicial review.
Renu Balwant Maru v. Bupendra Damjibhai Tank & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that a suit for partition of immovable property is a suit for land requiring prior leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent if any property lies outside its jurisdiction, and failure to obtain such leave mandates rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd v. Bhavesh Suresh Kataria
The Bombay High Court upheld an interim injunction against a company using the mark 'Kataria Insurance', holding that Section 35 protection for bona fide use of one's name does not extend to corporate entities, and affirmed trademark infringement and passing off by the company against the registered proprietor of the 'KATARIA' mark.
Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction v. The Official Liquidator of the Swadeshi Mills Company Limited
The Bombay High Court allowed the application to stay the winding-up of Swadeshi Mills Ltd. under Section 466 of the Companies Act, holding that the proposed revival scheme met the tests of bona fide intention, commercial morality, and public interest, supported by shareholder approval and settlement of dues.
V. K. Narayanan v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court quashed FIR and proceedings against an elderly applicant for alleged inverted flag display, holding no prima facie case and emphasizing the need for intention and proper judicial scrutiny in cognizance orders.
Shri Kishore Dewani v. The Directorate of Enforcement
The Bombay High Court quashed the process issued against the applicant under the PMLA, holding that property acquired prior to the generation of proceeds of crime cannot be treated as tainted and that the Designated Court failed to apply its mind in issuing process.
Advanced Technology Products Inc. v. Oriental Export Corporation
The Bombay High Court set aside an ex parte review order passed by an alternate judge lacking jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 5 CPC, reaffirming that review applications must be heard by the original judge if available within two months.