Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Material contradictions, significant omissions, and the complete absence of the alleged photographs, videos, messages, and call records persuades the Bombay High Court to suspend the sentence in a POCSO conviction, holding that the prosecution case raised serious issues requiring appellate scrutiny and that the evidence disclosed chances of acquittal pending appeal.
The Court held that the Family Court had not appreciated the jurisdictional parameters of Section 12, Guardians and Wards Act and had failed to independently assess the physical, emotional, educational or psychological welfare of the child while directing change of interim custody.
Can litigants save court fees by simply joining hands in a single writ petition? The Bombay High Court answered with a qualified no, holding that court fees on joint writ petitions are payable per petitioner when each petitioner seeks an individual benefit.
The Bombay High Court reiterated that at the Section 11 stage, the Court is concerned only with the existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving disputes relating to repudiation, limitation, and arbitrability for the Arbitral Tribunal.
The High Court held that in view of the alternative, efficacious statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act, the writ petition was not maintainable and the question of law raised under the IBC was nothing but another desperate attempt to avoid steps being taken by the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act.
The Court noted that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree; however, in the event of an ambiguity in the decree on material aspects, it is the duty of the Court to interpret the decree in the process of giving true effect to it.
98 per cent compliant, but still under suspension. The Bombay High Court found no justification for keeping a Pune sweet shop closed only because an appeal against the suspension order was pending and ordered the Maharashtra FDA to pay ₹5 lakhs compensation to the shop for the loss suffered during the period of closure.
The High Court held that employees who have worked for six months or more in a particular year would be entitled to the benefit of annual increment and their retiral benefits would be calculated by reckoning such increment while calculating their last drawn wages.
Holding that FDA’s recalled restrictions on ACILOC drug stocks stood neutralised, the Court directed fresh show-cause notices under Rule 85, Drugs Rules, 1945, before any further action.
The High Court held that the enquiry under Section 12-A(1), Commercial Courts Act is limited to whether the suit genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief and that the plaint must be examined holistically without adjudicating the merits of the interim relief.
The Bombay High Court held that employees who had rendered more than six months of qualifying service from the date of their last annual increment could not be denied the benefit of annual increment merely because they retired before 1 July.
The judgment provides important guidance on the interpretation of the exception to mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act. It clarifies that while the exception must be construed strictly, courts must assess urgency on the basis of the overall factual matrix rather than a narrow or merits-based inquiry.
The High Court held that the victim’s testimony was natural, credible and inspiring of confidence, while the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was not only unreasonable but perverse, rendering its conclusions untenable and contrary to any possible view of the evidence.
The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on 6 August 2026, recommended the elevation of Justice V. Kameswar Rao, Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge, Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra as Chief Justices of the Patna, Calcutta, Bombay, and Punjab and Haryana High Courts, respectively.
The Bombay High Court held that a litigant cannot remain absent from proceedings for years and later seek indulgence on the ground of a supposed bona fide misunderstanding.
The Court clarified that appointments made unilaterally without contractual authority or consent would be void, subject to the Court’s clarification regarding unsuccessful prior challenges.
The Court held that a registered sale deed supported by receipt of consideration and transfer of title cannot be contradicted by an unregistered agreement, and in the absence of dishonest intention from inception, no offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC is made out.
Three government canteens, a uniform 98% score, and not a single insect in sight, until a surprise inspection found flies, cockroaches, and a refrigerator “in shambles.” Meanwhile, a private restaurant lost its licence over a banana with black dots.
When a taxpayer told the Bombay High Court he was staring down a fourth round of arguments after the matter was heard thrice without any pronouncement of judgment, the Court didn’t just fix his case, it ordered every ITAT in the country to start following the 90-day rule under Rule 34, Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
The Bombay High Court restored a food business licence suspended under the proviso to Section 32(3), Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, holding that once fresh inspections conducted pursuant to the Court’s orders demonstrated 95 per cent compliance and graded the establishment as “Compliance/Satisfactory”, continuance of the suspension no longer served the preventive object for which it had originally been imposed.