Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Bombay High Court rejected the insurance company’s contentions and directed them to pay the claim of Rs 11,05,953 to the petitioner with interest and Rs 5 lakhs as costs of litigation.
Bombay High Court quashed two of State Government’s circulars, limited the stamp duty only to additional area purchased during redevelopment, and laid several pointers which shall apply further beyond the facts of the present matter.
On 03-03-2023, the President has appointed following Additional Judges of Bombay High Court, to be Judges of Bombay High Court with effect
Referring to the auto driver expressing his liking to the minor girl without any sexual intent, Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail holding that he prima facie deserves protection from arrest.
Cases under Section 153A are on the rise and the onus is on the police/State to ensure that the said provision is not misused by anyone, much less, political parties.
The Bombay High Court held that the Petitioner’s proposed project is for providing water for the citizens of Gorai village as the said project certainly falls under the permitted exceptions in the scheme of the things provided for CRZ as well as protection of mangroves.
The Supreme Court held that merely because either of the parties have disputed a factum of paternity, it does not mean that the Court should direct DNA test or such other test to resolve the controversy. Only in exceptional and deserving cases, where such a test becomes indispensable to resolve the controversy the Court can direct such test.
Concluding that the principal contention raised by the petitioner regarding consolidation of claims arising out of nine separate contracts is devoid of substance, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition refusing to interfere with the arbitral award.
Bombay High Court refused to exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India keeping in view that the Bullet Train Project is an Infrastructural Project of national importance.
The petitioner was engaged to undertake the cleaning and sweeping of the Government office premises for almost 26 years and was being paid much less than even the minimum wages paid to manual labourers. The Bombay High Court said that it t is a fit case where the State should compensate the Petitioner for violating her rights under Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Dipankar Datta, was born on 09-02-1965 in a Bengali family. He served as a Judge in the Calcutta High Court, and as a Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, then he was sworn in as Supreme Court Judge by Chief Justice Dr D.Y. Chandrachud on 12-12-2022
The entire trajectory of this case must be deprecated. When a principle challenge against the termination fails and while an appeal is pending, one distress warrant is challenged in Delhi only to be allegedly later withdrawn and other distress warrants are now brought before this Court.
Bombay High Court: In a PIL filed by the petitioner who is a social activist highlighted the issue of conduct of mock
The Bombay High Court found the ‘Body Building Competition’ unfit among the categories of acts which are per se obnoxious, unpleasant, avoidable, illegal or negative with respect to the Code of Conduct issued by the Election Commission of India.
The Court was deciding the case where the ex-employees of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation had challenged decision denying the benefit of revision of pay scales, as recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission, to the employees who had retired or died during the period of 01.01.2006 to 29.03.2010.
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996
There should be no scope for the declarant to escape on the technical grounds from responsibility attached to the statement made by him in the affidavit. Unless those compliances, referred to in paragraphs 5 and 8 of chapter VII of the Criminal Manual are complied with, it will be difficult to hold the person making a declaration on oath responsible for the statement made on an oath.
The judgment and order dated 13-09-2022 of NGT in Anil Tharthare v. State of Maharashtra, Appeal No. 22 of 2016, cannot be construed to mean a blanket prohibition to consider the proposals of the projects governed by DCPR 2034 or UDCPR.
“The Court held that in every case of trademark infringement, the plaintiff claiming infringement of its registered mark is required to claim relief in the context of specific instances of infringement, relatable to individuals against whom orders can be passed by the Court.”
Imposing a prohibitory ban on merchant establishments and establishments that provide livelihood is contrary to the enshrined principles under Article 21.