Bombay High Court judgments

Bombay High Court rules that a clerical error in area description in a registration document does not constitute an offence under Section 82 of the Registration Act if there is no intent to evade stamp duty. The ruling underscores that criminal liability requires proof of mens rea, protecting parties from prosecution for inadvertent mistakes.

Bombay High Court rules that mere performance of duties in a reserved post does not confer a right to absorption without a valid appointment order. The judgment underscores that contractual terms of employment, including temporary status, cannot be bypassed for service claims under the Maharashtra Universities Act.

Bombay High Court rules that only societies registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act qualify for fair price shop allotments, invalidating municipal registration as insufficient. The judgment directs fresh advertisement, impacting self-help groups and public procurement policies.

Bombay High Court rules that courts may allow additional issues on annexures to wills under CPC Order XIV, even if not specifically pleaded, to ensure comprehensive adjudication of testamentary disputes. This holding expands judicial discretion in probate proceedings, impacting succession litigation strategy.

Bombay High Court rules that once non-consenting heirs have already contested and lost a final adjudication on a Will's validity, fresh citation under Rule 397 is redundant. The decision streamlines testamentary proceedings by preventing repetitive procedural hurdles for executors and beneficiaries.

Bombay High Court invokes Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR where allegations of cheating and forgery stemmed from a redevelopment dispute, emphasizing that private civil grievances cannot be criminalized. The ruling clarifies that criminal proceedings are unwarranted when the core dispute revolves around contractual obligations or allotment disagreements, offering relief to developers and parties entangled in similar civil disputes.

Bombay High Court rules that land acquisition under the Maharashtra Tenancy Act requires strict compliance with Sections 65 and 66, mandating a statutory inquiry before any acquisition. The court quashed the acquisition order, emphasizing that procedural fairness is non-negotiable, and mere declaration without inquiry is insufficient to deprive landowners of their property rights.

The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim John Doe injunction to block ransomware actors threatening to expose 1TB of confidential client data, affirming that digital extortion falls within the scope of the IT Act and IPC. This sets a critical precedent for businesses facing cyber ransom threats, enabling swift legal intervention before data is leaked.

Bombay High Court rules that the Competent Authority under MOFA can grant deemed conveyance to flat purchasers even if a civil suit challenging the developer's title is pending. The judgment reinforces statutory protection for flat owners, ensuring their rights are not stalled by prolonged litigation over property ownership.

Bombay High Court rules that concealing a partnership firm's tax liabilities in the mandatory Form 26 affidavit under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, amounts to a corrupt practice, warranting trial. The judgment underscores the strict disclosure obligations for election candidates, impacting electoral transparency and accountability.

Bombay High Court rules that mild intellectual disability negates valid consent under Section 376(2)(j) and (l) IPC, even if the victim performs daily chores. The court relied on conclusive DNA evidence and expert testimony to dismiss the appeal, reinforcing that cognitive impairment invalidates consent in rape cases.

The Bombay High Court overturned a life sentence, holding that recovery of the victim’s belongings from the accused cannot substitute for a coherent, unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the act of murder. This reinforces that in cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence, every link must be proven beyond reasonable doubt - a critical safeguard for accused persons in homicide trials.

Bombay High Court rules that termination of a redevelopment agreement does not entitle the developer to retain the FSI purchase price, as Section 64 of the Contract Act mandates restitution to prevent unjust enrichment. The society is directed to refund Rs. 7.08 crore to the developer, reinforcing contractual fairness in property disputes.

Bombay High Court vacates an ex parte injunction after finding the plaintiff suppressed the defendant's prior use of the 'Apex' trademark since 1966. The ruling underscores the duty of full disclosure in IP injunction applications and reinforces the prior use defense under the Trademarks Act.

Bombay High Court stayed a slum rehabilitation declaration after finding the Slum Rehabilitation Authority violated principles of natural justice by failing to afford property owners a hearing. The ruling reinforces that administrative actions impacting proprietary rights must comply with audi alteram partem, setting a precedent for procedural fairness in slum rehabilitation schemes.

The Bombay High Court granted bail in a forgery and fraud case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, holding that once the investigation is complete, mere circumstantial evidence - including inadmissible confessions and call records - cannot justify continued detention. This reinforces that bail cannot be withheld solely on speculative links when no direct evidence ties the accused to the conspiracy, setting a critical precedent for non-bailable offences under BNS with seven-year maximum punishment.

The Bombay High Court ruled that holding a position in a local authority such as the Agricultural Produce Market Committee does not amount to an office of profit under Article 191 of the Constitution, thereby upholding the election of a candidate who held such a post. The judgment also clarifies that minor procedural defects in nomination forms cannot invalidate an election unless proven to have materially affected the outcome, offering critical clarity to local officeholders seeking public office.

Bombay High Court rules that a promotion and salary increase post-accident negate claims for future loss of earning capacity under motor accident compensation law. The judgment underscores that tribunals must consider post-accident career progression before awarding damages for diminished earning potential.

Bombay High Court rules that minor discrepancies in area certificates cannot override the statutory obligation of deemed conveyance under MOFA Section 11 once the project is completed. The judgment reinforces promoter accountability, ensuring housing societies receive conveyance rights even if documentation is not flawless.

The Bombay High Court ruled that under Section 77 of the LARR Act, 2013, authorities cannot demand physical presence of landowners to disburse compensation if identity and supporting documents are duly verified. This clarifies administrative overreach and ensures timely payment to claimants who have fulfilled statutory requirements, particularly those unable to appear in person due to distance, disability, or other legitimate constraints.

Bombay High Court reinforces Supreme Court precedent by invalidating arbitral awards where arbitrators were unilaterally appointed, holding such appointments void ab initio under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Parties might now face fresh arbitration proceedings, with limitation periods adjusted to exclude the voided process duration.

Bombay High Court rules that under Section 11(5) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), the Registering Authority is statutorily bound to register a deemed conveyance once certified, irrespective of procedural defects like non-impleadment of the owner. The ruling clarifies that registration cannot be refused on technical grounds, reinforcing the mandatory nature of the provision for housing societies.

Bombay High Court rules that land reservations under the MRTP Act automatically lapse if acquisition proceedings are not initiated within 12 months of the statutory notice. The court clarified that mere revision of the development plan does not revive the lapsed reservation, protecting landowners from indefinite uncertainty.

Bombay High Court ruled that the 24-week gestational limit under the MTP Act does not apply when a Medical Board confirms a 'substantial fetal abnormality' under Section 3(2)(b). The Court permitted termination at 34 weeks for non-lethal skeletal dysplasia, emphasizing the risk of severe lifelong morbidity over statutory timelines, reinforcing reproductive autonomy in exceptional medical cases.