2128 Bombay High Court judgments explained in plain English: what was decided, the law applied and why it matters. Page 2 of 89.
Bombay HC held no Letters Patent Act leave needed for admiralty suits if cause of action arises in India, as Section 17 of the Admiralty Act, 2017 repeals that colonial prerequisite, clarifying jurisdiction for claims in India and affecting shipowners.
The Bombay HC held that the Competent Authority erred in rejecting the deemed conveyance application. It ruled acquiescence to separate society formation entitles the petitioner society to proportionate conveyance of 2139.14 sq.mts of layout land, including road FSI benefits, under GR 2018.
The Bombay High Court held IBC Section 96(4) applies retrospectively, lifting the interim moratorium on secured asset recovery from May 26, 2026. This lets banks and financial institutions enforce security interests in insolvency cases without the stay.
Bombay High Court clarifies that caretaker agreements were licenses, not leases, and confirms its power under Order XLI Rule 33 in Article 227 petitions, directing mesne profit enquiry for long-term occupation.
The Bombay High Court held that the clause 'Arbitration Subject to Mumbai Jurisdiction' in a purchase order constitutes a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7, even though it lacks mandatory referential language or procedural machinery. The court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6), affirming that minimalist clauses can satisfy the statutory threshold for arbitration agreements in commercial contracts.
The Bombay High Court held that stamp duty on a Joint Development Agreement cannot be levied on future contingent development rights as if they were present vested rights, quashing orders that inflated valuation beyond rights existing on the execution date. The ruling clarifies that valuation under Article 5(g-a)(i) must reflect only the development rights actually transferred at the time of agreement execution, protecting developers from excessive duty demands on speculative future entitlements.
The Bombay High Court held that an assignee of ownership rights is not bound by an arbitration clause in a development agreement unless the arbitration agreement is expressly assigned or accepted. The court also ruled that limitation objections fall within the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 16, not the Section 11 court's purview at the appointment stage.
Approval of a resolution plan under IBC extinguishes tax liabilities, requiring refund of pre-deposit and quashing tax recovery orders; this bars authorities from pursuing dues after plan approval, affecting taxpayers and tax departments.
The Bombay High Court held that a writ petition contesting a gratuity award cannot proceed because the petitioners failed to file an appeal within the 120-day period prescribed by Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and it affirmed the validity of the notice served on the Trust’s administrative manager. This underscores that parties must strictly observe the statutory limitation to seek relief under the PG Act, affecting employers and former employees alike.
An EPF assessment order issued during the CIRP was set aside because the IBC moratorium prevents continuation of such inquiries and the amendment to Section 31(6) extinguishes claims filed before resolution. The ruling limits employees’ provident-fund claims against insolvent companies and guides resolution professionals.
A corporate defendant successfully invoked the Section 35 bona-fide use defence to retain a family name in its trademark, prompting the Bombay High Court to modify the earlier interim injunction. The ruling clarifies that companies may lawfully use surnames when use is genuine, affecting future trademark litigants.
A later government resolution cannot cut short the retirement age already granted to an associate professor, preserving the employee’s accrued service right. The Bombay High Court held that the retirement age fixed at 62 under the earlier rule remains enforceable despite a 2025 order seeking retirement at 60. This safeguards all government employees whose service terms were fixed before any subsequent amendment.
An ICC email declaring a complaint lacks a sexual element is deemed a ‘recommendation’ under Section 13(2) of the POSH Act, permitting a Section 18 appeal. The Bombay HC set aside the Industrial Court’s order, remanding the case for fresh consideration and confirming the right to appeal.
The Bombay High Court ruled that the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC applies only to corporate debtors and does not halt criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act against company directors. This limits the moratorium’s protective reach, leaving directors exposed to prosecution during insolvency.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a collector may not demand a no-objection from a co-operative society as a pre-condition for registering a consent decree under the Registration Act. This clarifies that Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code does not extend to such registrations. Property owners and societies gain certainty that registration cannot be blocked by administrative consent.
A foreign LL.B., even if recognised by the Bar Council of India, does not satisfy the ‘first degree’ requirement for entry into India’s three-year LL.B. programmes. The Bombay High Court upheld the university’s cancellation of the petitioner’s provisional admission on this basis. The decision narrows eligibility for overseas law graduates seeking domestic LL.B. enrollment.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a party cannot obtain an interim mandatory injunction to revive a determinable contract; the dispute must proceed to arbitration, with the Rs 1 lakh caution money kept in escrow. This curtails injunctive relief in commercial contracts and reinforces arbitration clauses.
The Bombay High Court held that criminal prosecution under Section 26 of the SEBI Act is exclusive to SEBI, so an FIR alleging front-running cannot proceed without a formal SEBI complaint. This reinforces that special securities statutes override ordinary criminal provisions, limiting police initiation of such cases. The decision affects dealers, mutual-fund firms and any party subject to SEBI-triggered investigations.
Bombay HC rules that part-time community health volunteers are employees under the Minimum Wages Act and must receive statutory minimum wages.
A Section 11(6) petition is limited to a prima-facie test of the arbitration agreement, with limitation defences outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also held that non-signatory promoters can be treated as parties to the arbitration. This narrows Section 11 scope and extends arbitral reach to promoters.
The Bombay High Court quashed municipal notices to acquire part of a privately owned factory for road widening. It ruled that Sections 297 and 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act apply only to existing public streets, so they cannot be used to take private land that is not a street, protecting owners from unlawful acquisition.
Bombay High Court fixes market value at Rs.1,725 per square metre for Bokadvira land acquisition, clarifying valuation principles under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Co-operative banks are not liable to deduct TDS on interest they pay to non-member co-operative societies under Section 194A(3)(v). The Bombay High Court set aside the ITAT order that treated the banks as assessee-in-default, confirming the statutory exemption. The ruling relieves all co-operative banks and their non-member society borrowers from TDS obligations.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a cooperative society can be deregistered under Section 21A only if its original registration was obtained through a material misrepresentation, and not merely for construction irregularities discovered later. This narrows the scope of de-registration, protecting societies from punitive cancellation for compliance lapses after registration.