Bombay High Court judgments

The Bombay High Court ruled that a consent decree declaring title operates in rem and binds all parties, rendering limitation and non-execution defences unavailable. The Court directed the State to demarcate and record the balance lands in revenue records within six weeks, enforcing the decree's binding effect on government authorities.

The Bombay HC ordered rectification of LEFOXIN BIOX, holding it deceptively similar to Glaxo's 1956 LANOXIN mark under the stricter Cadila pharma test. Export sales constitute use in India under Section 56(1), but removal is deferred to December 31, 2026 for rebranding.

The Bombay High Court held that once the full admitted tax is paid and a Tribunal appeal is filed, Section 112(9) CGST Act automatically stays recovery of disputed interest, as Section 112(8) requires no pre-deposit. The ruling shields taxpayers from coercive recovery during appeals, confirming the stay operates without a separate application.

The Bombay High Court ruled that an arrest under PMLA Section 19 is impermissible when Section 50 proceedings have already been initiated on the same material, quashing three remand orders and directing the petitioner's immediate release. The decision reinforces procedural safeguards against parallel coercive actions by the Enforcement Directorate.

The court held that a terminated development agreement is not an 'asset' under Section 14(1)(d), and the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) is confined to disputes arising directly from insolvency. This permits arbitration proceedings initiated by the corporate debtor to continue during CIRP.

The Bombay High Court quashed Scrutiny Committee orders rejecting Scheduled Tribe caste validity certificates, ruling that a pre-Independence birth record cannot be dismissed as interpolated without expert handwriting analysis. The court directed issuance of certificates within three weeks, safeguarding applicants' rights against arbitrary rejection of historical documentary evidence.

The Bombay High Court held that serving a Section 41A CrPC notice after arrest renders the arrest illegal, exposing police manipulation of records and collusion with a developer to frame the petitioner. The court awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation, ordered the investigating Sub-Inspector's suspension, and referred the Magistrate to the Administrative Committee for judicial oversight failures.

The Bombay High Court consolidated 10 FIRs across six districts against a cooperative society director under the MPID Act, IPC and PCMC Act, directing a single trial at Nashik. The first FIR serves as the main case while subsequent FIRs are treated as Section 161 statements, curbing multiplicity of proceedings in economic offence cases.

The Bombay High Court ruled that the RERA Appellate Tribunal cannot adjudicate merits when the Regulatory Authority dismissed a complaint on maintainability grounds without a merits hearing. Doing so would deprive parties of their statutory right to first-instance adjudication and a subsequent appeal. The Tribunal must remand the matter to the Authority for fresh merits determination.

The Bombay High Court quashed a ₹25 crore SAFEMA attachment, holding that the Enforcement Directorate failed to establish any nexus between the appellants' legitimate pre-existing business transactions and the alleged YES Bank-DHFL proceeds of crime. The ruling clarifies that lawful business dealings routed through banking channels cannot be presumed as proceeds of crime under PMLA without a direct link to the scheduled offence, protecting genuine commercial transactions from overbroad attachment.

Bombay HC Division Bench grants Section 9 injunction to doctor-investors, barring land alienation to protect specific performance claim after 21-year developer default on delivery and IOD, reversing Single Judge's denial. The decision underscores Section 9's role in preventing arbitration frustration where prolonged inaction threatens the subject matter.

The Bombay HC ruled that permissive use by a relative cannot mature into adverse possession regardless of duration, placing the burden of proof squarely on the claimant. The court also held that an encroachment suit survives technical defects in property description and that the limitation period does not commence against permissive possession.

The court quashed cancellation of a Scheduled Caste child's RTE admission, holding distance norms cannot be rigidly enforced where a Division Bench ordered their removal for unaided schools and compliance would cost the child an academic year. The ruling affirms procedural barriers cannot override substantive educational access for disadvantaged groups.

Bombay High Court upholds Official Liquidator's claim to five paintings in Mafatlal Dyes liquidation, rejecting family claimants' objections and appointing art auction expert.

The Bombay High Court held that import date under FTP is shipment date not arrival upholding Ganesh Das Bhojraj principle and that FTP restrictions apply only to goods dispatched after notification benefiting importers whose goods arrived before notice.

Bombay HC held that 'Queen' lacks secondary meaning, dismissing the passing off claim against 'Queen Full Power'. The decision reinforces that a common word cannot be monopolised unless it has acquired distinctiveness, affecting film title disputes.

A partition suit is not barred by limitation if the plaintiff was unaware of his exclusion from joint family property, the Bombay HC held, stressing that knowledge of exclusion is essential for a limitation defence.

Only the sanctioned basement area (59.02 sq.m.) qualifies as a flat under the MCS Act for membership, as held by the Bombay HC. It directed such area be treated as residential for redevelopment, impacting developers and flat owners seeking membership.

Attesting testimony proves will’s execution and outweighs expert opinion, Bombay High Court ruled. It clarified that mere illness like Parkinson’s does not establish unsound mind and that disinheriting a natural heir in favor of offspring is not inherently suspicious.

The Bombay High Court set aside the allotment of flats to Jet Speed Developers' directors by Le Chateau Co-operative Housing Society, declaring it illegal. It directed the society to allot those flats to the member-petitioners within six weeks after they pay construction costs.

The Bombay HC granted an interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, restraining non-signatory associate Udayak Agro from ‘SURE’ water and confidential information, applying Section 9 to indirect breaches and setting a 4-week disclosure deadline.

The Bombay HC held that a promoter may terminate an allotment for non-payment of stamp duty under RERA, setting aside Maha RERA and Appellate Tribunal orders. It directed refund of Rs.12.3 lakh with interest at SBI MCLR+2% from July 2016, affirming that payment of statutory charges is a condition precedent to the allottee's rights.

Duty free shops cannot claim automatic exemption from regulatory laws merely operating beyond the customs barrier, Bombay High Court held. It affirmed that drugs and cosmetics remain under regulatory control despite customs barrier fiscal exemptions.

The Bombay High Court ruled that a delay in the declarant’s death, caused by medical complications, does not render a dying declaration inadmissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. This ruling reinforces the evidentiary value of such statements in murder prosecutions and guides lower courts on admitting delayed dying declarations.