Bombay High Court judgments

Bombay High Court reaffirms that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated after four years unless the Revenue establishes the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The ruling reinforces the finality of assessment orders and curtails arbitrary reopening of closed proceedings, offering critical protection to taxpayers against prolonged litigation.

Bombay High Court rules that enhanced license transfer fees under amended Bombay Prohibition (Privilege Fees) Rules, 1954 cannot apply to applications already approved before the amendment. Petitioners ordered to pay only the original fees with 2% interest, reinforcing the prohibition on retrospective financial burdens in administrative actions.

Bombay High Court rules that failure to serve an approach notice under Section 42(4) of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act is not fatal if the employer misleads the employee about their employment status or termination. The ruling allows industrial disputes to proceed on merits, protecting workers from procedural technicalities exploited by employers.

Bombay HC rules that workers illegally appointed in public employment cannot claim reinstatement but are entitled to enhanced compensation for unblemished service. The court awarded Rs. 5 lakh each, balancing equitable relief with constitutional principles under Article 14, setting a precedent for similar industrial disputes.

Bombay HC rules that prolonged absence due to judicial custody does not automatically negate willful misconduct under the Industrial Disputes Act. Employers must prove the employee was aware of service rules and deliberately avoided compliance, even during incarceration. The ruling mandates reinstatement proceedings before the Labour Court to assess evidence of willfulness and communication.

Bombay High Court rules that termination of a temporary employee after 15 years of service, based on unproven age ineligibility, constitutes unfair labour practice. The court mandates reinstatement with full back wages, reinforcing protections for long-term temporary workers under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Bombay HC ruled that long-term work on railway premises without formal appointment, payment, or employer control does not establish an employer-employee relationship under public employment law. The court set aside the Industrial Tribunal's absorption order, reinforcing that mere prolonged engagement does not confer legal status as a workman.

Bombay HC reinforces that public employers cannot evade wage obligations under the MRTU & PULP Act by assigning higher duties without formal promotion. Employees performing such duties for prolonged periods are entitled to corresponding pay and benefits, irrespective of promotion status.

Bombay High Court affirms that pending adoption matters under the Juvenile Justice Act can be decided by a single judge even if the 2021 amendment is under challenge, ensuring continuity in child welfare proceedings. The ruling sets a precedent for uninterrupted adjudication of adoption cases despite legislative disputes.

Bombay High Court affirms that courts can order issuance of a new birth certificate in the adoptive parents' name for an abandoned minor, reinforcing the legal identity rights of adopted children under the Juvenile Justice Act. The ruling clarifies judicial authority to modify identity documents post-adoption, ensuring seamless integration of the child into the adoptive family.

Bombay HC rules that documentary evidence of ancestral caste, such as school certificates, must override incorrect service records in OBC classification. The court upheld 'Kshatriya' as a valid OBC category, rejecting the scrutiny committee's reliance on the erroneous 'Telagu' entry, which was deemed a language, not a caste.

Bombay HC ruled that cancellation of a Non-Creamy Layer certificate without hearing violates natural justice, and retrospective application of a 2023 policy cannot override invalid 2001 criteria. The court restored the petitioner's Associate Professor appointment, emphasizing that failure to maintain interim relief does not forfeit substantive rights under reservation policy.

Bombay High Court rules that authorities cannot demolish unauthorized structures on government land without first determining if the area qualifies as a notified slum under the Slum Act. The judgment reinforces procedural safeguards, ensuring regularization or demolition actions comply with natural justice principles, directly impacting slum dwellers and urban planning policies.

Bombay High Court rules that MHADA's demolition orders under Section 55 of the MR&TP Act become final if unchallenged within the prescribed timeline, barring subsequent legal recourse. The court rejected pleas for fresh hearings, reinforcing strict compliance with statutory timelines for property disputes involving government authorities.

Bombay High Court reinforces that unilateral arbitrator appointments are void ab initio, setting aside awards and permitting fresh arbitration while excluding the limitation period from the original invocation date. The ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's precedent in Bhadra International, ensuring procedural fairness in arbitration proceedings.

The Bombay High Court ruled that under MOFA, a promoter who combines adjacent plots to maximize Floor Space Index cannot evade conveyance of the entire developed area simply because part of the land is classified as slum. The obligation to transfer title is mandatory, subject only to the existing rights of lawful occupants - reinforcing that FSI benefits do not override statutory conveyance duties to housing societies.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that housing societies cannot oust civil court jurisdiction over redevelopment disputes merely by passing resolutions-jurisdiction is preserved unless the society’s bye-laws expressly list redevelopment as an object. This protects members from being forced into arbitration-like processes without statutory authorization, reinforcing access to judicial remedies in property rights conflicts.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, deemed conveyance automatically transfers proportionate undivided rights in recreational grounds and open spaces essential to building use, but not the plinth area itself. This clarifies ownership boundaries for housing societies in TDR layouts, empowering residents to assert common amenity rights against developers who withhold shared infrastructure.

The Bombay High Court ruled that non-registration of a development agreement does not bar deemed conveyance under MOFA if the transactional history, possession, and statutory exemption under ULC prove the promoters' substantive rights. Landowners who availed ULC benefits are estopped from resisting conveyance, reinforcing statutory intent to protect flat owners' ownership rights.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that mere ownership of property is insufficient to establish jurisdiction in eviction suits under rent control laws; without evidence of a rent payment history or a formal tenancy agreement, the Small Causes Court lacks authority to adjudicate. This clarifies a critical jurisdictional barrier for landlords and protects long-term occupants from baseless eviction claims grounded solely in title.

Bombay HC clarifies that a former Karta’s sale of ancestral property after partition is valid only to the extent of his share, not the entire coparcenary property. The ruling reinforces coparcenary rights and limits the Karta’s authority post-partition, impacting property disputes under Hindu succession law.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that minority educational institutions under Article 30 may appoint qualified teachers without requiring a TET certificate, and rejection of appointments on procedural grounds-like failure to obtain prior permission or publish in a 'widely circulated' newspaper-is unlawful. This strengthens institutional autonomy and protects the right of minority-run schools to staff based on merit, not bureaucratic compliance.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the constitutional right to carry on any trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) cannot be extinguished by the mere lapse of time in filing a GST registration appeal. Even if the statutory limitation period under the MGST Act has expired, the registration must be restored upon payment of pending dues, ensuring that procedural delays do not destroy fundamental economic rights.

The Bombay High Court granted an interim stay against the demolition of a decades-old safety door installed by tenants for child protection, holding that selective enforcement by the Municipal Corporation violates natural justice. The ruling affirms that long-standing, non-disruptive structural adaptations by vulnerable residents cannot be arbitrarily removed without addressing systemic inconsistency in municipal action.