Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Bombay High Court: Expressing that, Negligence does not always mean absolute carelessness, but want of such a degree of care as required
Bombay High Court: In respect to petitions with regard to the release of movie Gangubai Kathiawadi, Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ
Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court, Bombay: G.S. Kulkarni, J., expressed that, there is no provision under legislations, that if a marriage between the
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Milind N. Jadhav and S.J. Kathawalla, JJ., refused to grant any ad-interim order in favour
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of K.R. Shriram and N.J. Jamdar, JJ., reiterated that notice under Section 148 of the Income
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.J. Kathawalla and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ., requested the Department of Legal Affairs to give
Bombay High Court: Stating that, in the moment of anger spouses almost forgot about the two children who were hardly three years
In continuation to analyse a few cases wherein the issue of “headscarf” was touched upon by the Courts, today let’s see what
Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for elevation of the following Advocates as Judges in the Bombay High Court: 1. Shri
Bombay High Court: B.P. Colabawalla, J., addressed an arbitration application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Instant
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ., modified the conviction of a husband who
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.S. Shinde and N.R. Borkar, JJ., upheld the decision of the Trial Court in a
Bombay High Court: Addressing a matter wherein a child’s mother was diagnosed with cancer due to which she started living at her
Supreme Court Collegium has, on reconsideration, resolved to reiterate its earlier recommendation for the elevation of the following two Judicial Officers as
Bombay High Court: Quoting a phrase from a story of a Roman Ruler Julius Caesar that, “Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion”,
Bombay High Court: Sarang V. Kotwal, J., on noting that the husband and wife cannot live together and there were constant quarrels
Bombay High Court: Vibha Kankanwadi, J., while directing Child Welfare Committee, Jalna to hold an inquiry on an expeditious basis in respect
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of G.S. Patel and Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ., passed an interim order in the dispute going
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and G.A. Sanap, JJ., refused to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for
Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., examines whether an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act on behalf of