Bombay High Court judgments

Bombay High Court rules that secured creditors under the SARFAESI Act hold priority over state tax dues arising after 20 January 2020, reinforcing CERSAI registration as the determining factor. The judgment clarifies that post-amendment tax claims do not override secured interests, impacting insolvency and recovery proceedings for banks and financial institutions.

Bombay HC Aurangabad Bench upholds eviction under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, ruling that a landlord's bona fide requirement for personal use is valid even if they own other joint family properties. The court clarified that mere ownership of alternate properties does not negate the landlord's right to eviction, setting a precedent for landlord-tenant disputes in Maharashtra.

Bombay HC Aurangabad Bench rules that altering selection criteria mid-process-such as introducing 50% weightage after exams-without prior advertisement violates Article 14 and legitimate expectation. Petitioners secured appointments based on the originally advertised total marks, setting a precedent for transparency in public employment recruitment.

Bombay High Court reinforces that District Magistrates must dispose of Section 14 SARFAESI Act applications within 30 days, treating it as a ministerial duty. The ruling underscores strict timelines for secured creditors, ensuring expedited enforcement of security interests without adjudicatory delays.

The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR against an individual who only introduced a buyer to a builder, ruling that without any financial stake, contractual obligation, or active participation in the fraudulent transaction, mere introduction does not satisfy the ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC or MOFA 1963. This clarifies the boundary of criminal liability for third-party intermediaries in real estate fraud cases.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that parents-in-law qualify as 'legal representatives' under the Motor Vehicles Act if they can prove financial dependency on the deceased, regardless of inheritance status. This expands the scope of compensation claimants beyond statutory heirs, affirming that dependency-not lineage-determines entitlement under Section 166, with direct implications for insurance claims and family compensation petitions nationwide.

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) ruled that landowners in the same village acquired under contemporaneous notifications for the same project must receive uniform compensation, rejecting the State's plea for differential rates. The court fixed compensation at Rs. 45-55 per sq. ft., reinforcing parity under Article 14 of the Constitution and setting a precedent for equitable land acquisition disputes.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that land reserved under the MRTP Act loses its legal status if the state fails to initiate acquisition within 10 years of final development plan sanction and an additional two years after issuing a Section 127 notice. This reinforces property rights under Article 300A and holds that technical flaws in notice or unilateral TDR offers cannot override constitutional protections for landowners.

The Bombay High Court has held that invoking the SC/ST Act requires proof of caste-based insult or humiliation-mere verbal abuse, even if vulgar, cannot sustain charges under Section 3(1)(x) without evidence of discriminatory intent. This ruling reinforces that the Act is not a general anti-abuse statute and shields individuals from its misuse in personal disputes, setting a critical boundary for law enforcement and prosecutors.

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench reinforces Lalita Kumari guidelines, holding that police cannot convert a civil property dispute into a criminal inquiry merely because a sale deed exists. The court quashed police summons where no cognizable offence was disclosed, even after a five-year delay in complaint filing.

The Bombay High Court ruled that a landlord's bonafide need for possession, established at the time of filing an eviction suit under the Rent Control Act, is not extinguished by their subsequent death - provided the need was genuine and documented. This protects landlords' rights against procedural delays and reinforces that judicial backlog cannot override substantive claims of necessity.

Bombay HC affirms that the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act can grant deemed conveyance even if the developer has prepared a draft deed excluding certain areas. The ruling clarifies that disputes over property transfer entitle societies to statutory remedy, overriding developer objections.

Bombay HC enforces an ICC award governed by Qatari law, holding that Indian public policy does not override parties' choice of foreign law for damages, including both liquidated and unliquidated claims. The ruling clarifies the scope of enforceability of foreign awards in commercial disputes with international elements.

The Bombay High Court held that the Mumbai Cricket Association, though not a signatory to the participation agreement, is bound by its arbitration clause under the composite transaction doctrine, as it was an integral part of the same commercial ecosystem as the league organizer. This extends arbitration enforceability to entities exercising de facto control over contractual frameworks, setting a new benchmark for sports and event governance disputes.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that adjacent landowners retain the right to claim compensation for easementary rights even after transferring ownership, if their remaining land suffers demonstrable adverse impact from highway acquisition. This clarifies that compensation is tied to functional impairment of retained property, not mere ownership status, significantly expanding protections for commercial landowners in infrastructure projects.

Bombay High Court rules that a cheque dishonoured due to 'Account Blocked' status still attracts liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if insufficient funds are prima facie established. The court affirmed concurrent findings, holding that the statutory presumption of dishonour applies even when the account is blocked, impacting creditors and debtors in cheque bounce cases.

Bombay HC permits senior citizens (aged 77 and 78) to travel to the US despite an LOC issued by Bank of Baroda, imposing strict conditions including property disclosure, itinerary compliance, and return undertakings. The ruling sets a precedent for balancing travel rights of elderly individuals against financial institution concerns, reinforcing judicial discretion in LOC suspensions for humanitarian grounds.

Bombay HC reaffirms that a licensee's possession rights terminate upon license expiry, even if an Agreement for Sale was executed during the license period. The court held that the licensee must vacate the premises and seek independent remedies for the Agreement, reinforcing the distinction between licensee and tenant rights under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

Bombay High Court rules that a complainant claiming 'holder in due course' status under Section 138 NI Act must substantiate proprietorship of the payee firm with documentary proof, not mere assertions. The ruling sets a precedent for stricter evidentiary standards in cheque dishonour cases, impacting creditors and businesses relying on negotiable instruments.

The Bombay High Court ruled that when a developer exhausts the full Floor Space Index of a plot, the cooperative society is entitled to land proportional to the built-up density, not just the plinth area. This sets a precedent for fair land allocation in deemed conveyance cases, ensuring societies benefit from the actual development potential utilized by promoters.

Bombay High Court rules that OBC candidates appointed under MEPS Act Section 9(9)(a) are entitled to permanency after three years of continuous service, even if initial vacancies were reserved for SC/ST/NT categories. The judgment reinforces reservation policy compliance while ensuring service law protections for marginalized communities in public employment.

Bombay HC rules that possession of acquired land must be limited to the exact boundaries specified in the final award, rejecting generic possession receipts lacking landowner signatures. The court also mandates MIDC to decide landowners' representation for in-lieu allotment within four weeks, reinforcing procedural safeguards in land acquisition disputes.

Bombay HC rules that landowners who execute development agreements but retain title cannot be excluded from Section 11 proceedings under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The court emphasized that natural justice mandates their impleadment, as any order in deemed conveyance proceedings directly impacts their property rights.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that even repeated acts of robbery, without evidence of connection to organized crime or broader public unrest, fail to meet the threshold for preventive detention under the MPDA Act. This sets a critical limit on executive power, reinforcing that Article 22(5) safeguards require more than criminal history - they demand a tangible threat to public order.