Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Manish Pitale, J., expressed while addressing the present application that, “Second marriage cannot come within the definition of domestic

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ., while explaining the provisions under Maintenance and Welfare

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sunil B. Shukre and Rohit B. Deo, JJ., expressed its view that, The principle “Equal

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and G.S. Kulkarni, J., while addressing the petitions challenging the IT Rules,

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: G.S. Patel, J., held that the reporter or any other commentator should not deliver for public consumption a view

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Mangesh S. Patil, J., while upholding the decision of Special Judge elaborated on the Sections of POCSO Act in

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of V.K. Jadhav and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ., held that, Mere dishonour of cheque and refusal

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of R.D. Dhanuka and R.I. Chagla, JJ., addressed a petition revolving around the Right to Education

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Manish Pitale, J., while setting aside an impugned order explained the slight difference between principles laid down under Section

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and Amit B. Borkar, JJ., addressees the present matter while explaining the existence

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Manish Pitale, J., while upholding the decision of Sessions Court discussed more on the concept of ‘continuing offence’ under

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sunil B. Shukre and Anil S. Kilor, JJ., held that mandate of Section 34 leaves

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of R.D. Dhanuka and R.I. Chagla, JJ., refused to quash departmental enquiry against the petitioner even

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of V.K. Jadhav and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ., observed that, “…in the case of cheating, the

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.J. Kathawalla and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ., directed the builders who failed to refund the

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: K.R. Shriram, J., while explaining the concept of bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, upheld the decision

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.V. Gangapurwala and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ., expressed that, In a welfare State, statutory authorities

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., addressed a petition with regard to waiving the cooling period. Whether the minimum period of

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Manish Pitale, J., while stressing upon the concept of adoption expressed that: The practice of adoption has been prevalent

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Prithviraj K. Chauhan, JJ., held that wife wishing to stay abroad with