Touching feet of a woman without her consent: Is it outraging the modesty of a woman? Bom HC answers
Bombay High Court: While addressing a matter with regard to “outraging modesty of a woman”, M.G. Sewlikar, J., expressed that, “…touching any
Bombay High Court: While addressing a matter with regard to “outraging modesty of a woman”, M.G. Sewlikar, J., expressed that, “…touching any
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of K.R. Shriram and Amit B. Borkar, JJ., discussed when a person can be prosecuted under
Bombay High Court: G.S. Kulkarni, J., addressed an ordeal of a senior citizen who would be soon in her nineties and was
Bombay High Court: Division Bench of V.K. Jadhav and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ., addressed a case of ‘Honour Killing’ by a brother
Bombay High Court: Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J., decides whether the trial court’s decision mentioning the wrong provision pertaining to maintenance to the
Bombay High Court: Division Bench of M.S. Sonal and Pushpa V. Ganediwala, JJ., quashed the charges of abetment of suicide and other offences
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of G.S. Patel and Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ., considered petitions which raised questions about the interpretation
Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad: Vibha Kankanwadi, J., while addressing a matter revolving around the property, observed that, Article 254 of
Bombay High Court: While addressing a matter, Mangesh S. Patil, J., laid down significant aspects with regard to when a petition can
Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., dismissed a revision petition filed against the order of the lower court refusing to discharge
Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., held that an aggrieved person cannot choose to file a petition under Section 12 of
Bombay High Court: Noting in case after case, complaints from senior citizens that their own sons and daughters are harassing them, Division
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ. confirmed the death sentence awarded by the
Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., explained as to when a charge in the alternative can be framed against an accused
Bombay High Court: While laying down the detailed reasons of bail in the infamous Aryan Khan case, Nitin W. Sambre, J., held
“The reasoning in the High Court’s judgment quite insensitively trivializes – indeed legitimizes – an entire range of unacceptable behaviour which undermines a child’s dignity and autonomy, through unwanted intrusions.”
Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., reiterated the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pradip Ram
Bombay High Court: Anuja Prabhudessai, J., opined that where the witness is of tender age (as in the instant case before the
Bombay High Court: Noting that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Member did not properly determine just and proper compensation, V.M. Deshpande, J.,
Bombay High Court: While noting the failure of State Machinery in securing the presence of a person for 13 years, Division Bench