2132 Bombay High Court judgments explained in plain English: what was decided, the law applied and why it matters. Page 40 of 89.
Bombay High Court rules that claimants can withdraw deposited arbitration award amounts under Section 34 challenges, subject to an undertaking to refund if the Supreme Court reverses the order. The ruling clarifies that mere pendency of an appeal does not bar withdrawal, ensuring liquidity for claimants during prolonged disputes.
Bombay High Court rules that a prima facie breach of an Agreement for Sale disentitles petitioners from interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The court dismissed the petition seeking stay on a redevelopment agreement, emphasizing the necessity of contractual compliance for interim protection.
Bombay High Court reaffirms that mortgages created before RERA's enactment remain immune to state auction proceedings under the Act, unless fraud or collusion is proven. The ruling grants interim protection to secured creditors, preventing state authorities from auctioning properties already mortgaged prior to RERA's implementation, reinforcing the supremacy of pre-existing security interests.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that once a statutory land acquisition award fixes compensation at zero for trees, no further relief can be granted on grounds of compassion or hardship, even for senior citizens or women. The only recourse lies in invoking Section 64 of the LARR Act 2013 to challenge the award’s quantum - not through writ petitions seeking equitable relief. This reinforces the finality of statutory compensation determinations and curbs judicial overreach into administrative valuation.
Bombay High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, and 506 IPC against a husband and wife residing in the USA, ruling that general allegations without specific instances of cruelty or harassment fail to establish a prima facie case. The judgment reinforces that distant relatives cannot be prosecuted based on omnibus accusations, setting a precedent for matrimonial disputes involving non-resident accused.
Bombay High Court rules that prior conviction in a CRPF attack case and alleged Lashkar-e-Taiba links provide reasonable grounds to deny a Police Clearance Certificate for a Public Service Vehicle badge, prioritizing national security over the right to livelihood. The judgment reaffirms that constitutional rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public safety and order.
Bombay HC clarifies that repeated administrative lapses, particularly systematic violations of tender rules, constitute misconduct under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, justifying removal of an elected Sarpanch. The ruling sets a precedent for holding local self-government officials accountable for statutory breaches beyond mere procedural errors.
Bombay High Court rules that once a tenant’s name is deleted from revenue records due to non-cultivation, mere re-entry in records without proof of continuous possession cannot revive tenancy rights under the Maharashtra Tenancy Act. The judgment reinforces that extinguished tenancy rights cannot be resurrected through administrative entries alone, impacting landowners and tenants in property disputes.
Bombay High Court reaffirms that a husband’s willful non-participation in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC cannot defeat the wife’s entitlement to support. The ruling underscores that ex parte orders remain valid when evidence substantiates the wife’s claim, reinforcing the provision’s social welfare objective.
Bombay High Court rules that minor omissions-such as past contractual engagement or pending FIRs without serious allegations-cannot disqualify a widow from compassionate appointment. The Court reduced backwages from 100% to 30% and directed BEST to appoint the respondent within six weeks, reinforcing that only material suppression affects eligibility.
Bombay High Court rules that cancellation of land allotment without affording a hearing violates principles of natural justice, even where fraudulent claims are alleged. The judgment underscores that procedural fairness is mandatory in administrative actions affecting property rights, regardless of the merits of the underlying dispute.
Bombay High Court rules that fraudulently obtained building permissions are null and void, barring regularisation even for high-value projects. The judgment reinforces that unauthorised constructions-regardless of investment or completion-must be demolished to prevent environmental and urban planning violations, aligning with Supreme Court precedent on zero tolerance for illegal developments.
Bombay High Court dismisses a habeas corpus petition in a cross-border custody dispute, ruling that the child's welfare and practical circumstances take precedence over foreign court orders when compliance is impossible. The judgment reaffirms the presumption of lawful custody with the biological parent and underscores the limitations of enforcing jurisdictional orders in international family law disputes.
Bombay HC reinforces that RBI-based show cause notices declaring wilful default must explicitly identify which of the four sub-clauses under Clause 2.1.3 of the RBI Master Circular was violated. Vague or generic notices violate principles of natural justice and are liable to be quashed, protecting borrowers from arbitrary classification as wilful defaulters.
Bombay High Court holds that disciplinary orders based on no evidence are perverse and reviewable under Article 227. The Court quashed the dismissal of a Zilla Parishad employee, reinstated him with backwages, and imposed a lesser penalty for procedural lapses, emphasizing that natural justice mandates evidence-based findings in service law.
Bombay High Court rules that Section 13A of the Goa Public Gambling (Amendment) Act, 1992 remains unenforceable in Daman and Diu due to the absence of a Central Government notification. The judgment invalidates all administrative actions, including slot machine licensing denials, taken under the unnotified amendment, reinforcing the legal principle that delegated legislation requires formal notification to take effect.
Bombay HC clarifies that the 12-month suicide exclusion period under life insurance policies begins from the date of policy lapse, not revival. The ruling entitles the nominee to the full sum assured if suicide occurs beyond 12 months from lapse, even if within 12 months of revival, impacting policyholders and insurers on contract interpretation.
Bombay High Court rules that cooperative society elections conducted without adhering to the statutory procedure under Section 73-CB of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and the 2014 Rules are legally void. The court mandates strict compliance with notification, eligibility scrutiny, and nomination processes, even for unanimous elections, to prevent bypassing statutory mandates.
Bombay HC dismisses a writ petition with costs, ruling that delayed claims and fraudulent suppression of sale deeds disentitle petitioners from equitable relief. The judgment reaffirms that litigants must approach courts with 'clean hands' to seek compensation for acquired land.
Bombay High Court rules that provisional attachment under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act ceases to operate after one year by operation of law, regardless of pending proceedings. The judgment mandates immediate defreezing of bank accounts, providing relief to taxpayers facing prolonged attachment without adjudication.
Bombay High Court rules that once an arbitral tribunal is constituted, courts lose jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The judgment directs release of surplus funds to the developer and bars third-party interim relief claims, reinforcing the primacy of arbitral tribunals in contractual disputes.
Bombay HC rules that correction of date of birth in service records under Rule 38(2)(f) requires proof that the birth certificate predates service entry, not merely a clerical error claim. The judgment mandates documentary evidence of the error's origin, impacting all Maharashtra government employees seeking retrospective corrections.
Bombay High Court quashed two FIRs under Section 482 CrPC, holding that even serious offences can be compounded if allegations lack specific factual basis and parties reach a settlement. The ruling reaffirms that preventing abuse of process takes precedence over rigid prosecution where no prima facie case exists.
Bombay High Court rules that food traders cannot be penalized under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act if they prove compliance with statutory defences under Section 19(2). The court set aside suspension orders, emphasizing that authorities must apply the statutory protection before imposing penalties, ensuring natural justice for traders.