{"id":347339,"date":"2025-05-08T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-05-08T04:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=347339"},"modified":"2025-05-13T15:57:48","modified_gmt":"2025-05-13T10:27:48","slug":"remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence\u2019; Bombay High Court quashes SDO\u2019s order, directs fresh adjudication"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> In a writ petition filed against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koregaon, remanding the matter to the Mamlatdar without adjudication of the revision on merits, a Single Judge Bench of Amit Borkar, J., allowed the petition, holding that the Sub-Divisional Officer (‘SDO’) was under the legal duty to proceed with adjudication on available legal grounds instead of relegating the parties to a fresh round of proceedings without justification. Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order and restored the revision application for fresh adjudication by the SDO.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

A case was filed before the Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 (‘the Act’) for the removal of obstruction under the Act. The Mamlatdar declined to grant relief to the petitioner primarily on the ground that the panchnama, a material piece of documentary evidence, was not properly drawn according to the procedural requirements.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision application before the SDO. The SDO concurred with the Mamlatdar holding that the panchnama was defective. However, instead of evaluating the legal effect and evidentiary value of the said panchnama in the context of the case and proceeding to adjudicate the revision on its own merits, the revisional authority remitted the matter back to the Mamlatdar, thereby deferring the adjudication.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present case.<\/p>\n

Analysis<\/h3>\n

The Court opined that this approach adopted by the SDO was legally unsustainable. The Court reiterated that an order of remand is not to be passed as a matter of routine, and certainly not merely to fill up lacunae in evidence or to re-do what has already been considered. A remand may be warranted only if the original authority has failed to consider a material document, the appreciation of which requires either a re-evaluation of evidence or permitting parties to lead fresh evidence. The Court stated that this is not the case here.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that the revisional authority\/SDO, having recorded a finding on the defectiveness of the panchnama, was under a legal duty to test the merits of the Mamlatdar’s order in the light of the other evidence on record, and determine whether the decision suffers from perversity or legal infirmity. Once the panchnama was found to be of doubtful evidentiary worth, the correct course would have been to proceed with adjudication on available legal grounds, and not to relegate the parties to a fresh round of proceedings without justification.<\/p>\n

The Court remarked that the power of remand, when exercised in absence of compelling legal necessity, leads to avoidable delay in the resolution of disputes. Courts and quasi-judicial authorities are expected to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure effective adjudication in the interest of justice. Remand should not be directed where the record is sufficient for final disposal and no prejudice is caused.<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, the Court held that the SDO erred in law in passing an order of remand. The error went to the root of the jurisdiction and required interference under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order and restored the revision application. The Court directed the SDO to decide the revision application on its own merits within six weeks, having due regard to the material produced before the Mamlatdar and the findings recorded therein.<\/p>\n

[Kapil Satish Phalke v. Sub Divisional Officer, Koregaon, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1744<\/a>, decided on 05-05-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the petitioner:<\/span> Dilip Bodake<\/p>\n

For the respondent:<\/span> AGP M. S. Srivastava and Shreyas P. Barsawade<\/p>\n

Buy Constitution of India  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Once the panchnama was found to be of doubtful evidentiary worth, the correct course would have been to proceed with adjudication on available legal grounds, and not to relegate the parties to a fresh round of proceedings without justification.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":314919,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[14471,2569,37032,71002,81803,35002,15391,68907],"class_list":["post-347339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-article-227","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-fresh-adjudication","tag-justice-amit-borkar","tag-mamlatdar","tag-material-evidence","tag-remand","tag-sub-divisional-officer"],"yoast_head":"\n\u2018Remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence\u2019; Bombay HC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court quashed SDO\u2019s order, directed fresh adjudication; Stated that remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence\u2019; Bombay High Court quashes SDO\u2019s order, directs fresh adjudication\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court quashed SDO\u2019s order, directed fresh adjudication; Stated that remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-05-08T04:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-05-13T10:27:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018Remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence\u2019; Bombay High Court quashes SDO\u2019s order, directs fresh adjudication\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/\",\"name\":\"\u2018Remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence\u2019; Bombay HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-05-08T04:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-05-13T10:27:48+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court quashed SDO\u2019s order, directed fresh adjudication; Stated that remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Bombay High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence\u2019; Bombay High Court quashes SDO\u2019s order, directs fresh adjudication\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"\u2018Remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence\u2019; Bombay HC | SCC Times","description":"Bombay High Court quashed SDO\u2019s order, directed fresh adjudication; Stated that remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence\u2019; Bombay High Court quashes SDO\u2019s order, directs fresh adjudication","og_description":"Bombay High Court quashed SDO\u2019s order, directed fresh adjudication; Stated that remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-05-08T04:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-05-13T10:27:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence\u2019; Bombay High Court quashes SDO\u2019s order, directs fresh adjudication","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/","name":"\u2018Remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence\u2019; Bombay HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2025-05-08T04:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-05-13T10:27:48+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Bombay High Court quashed SDO\u2019s order, directed fresh adjudication; Stated that remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Bombay High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/08\/remand-warranted-only-if-original-authority-failed-to-consider-material-evidence-bombay-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Remand warranted only if original authority failed to consider material evidence\u2019; Bombay High Court quashes SDO\u2019s order, directs fresh adjudication"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":287720,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/24\/bombay-hc-relieves-raj-thackeray-in-2008-riots-case-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":347339,"position":0},"title":"Bombay High Court quashes order refusing to discharge Raj Thackeray in 2008 riots case","author":"Ridhi","date":"March 24, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court opined that the Revisional Court was obliged to prima facie discuss or indicate material on record showing Raj Thackeray's involvement in the alleged crime.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":322541,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/20\/bomay-hc-directs-sdo-to-issue-refund-to-petitioner-to-avoid-unjust-enrichment\/","url_meta":{"origin":347339,"position":1},"title":"[Unjust Enrichment] Bombay High Court directs for refund of amount deposited with Sub-Divisional Officer on account of cancellation of event","author":"Editor","date":"May 20, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court said that in the absence of any authority to forfeit the sum deposited in the application or agreement between the petitioner and the respondent, or any statutory provision or circular, renders the respondents disentitled to withhold the amount deposited with them.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":198997,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/25\/findings-on-past-record-is-necessary-before-branding-a-person-as-habitual-criminal\/","url_meta":{"origin":347339,"position":2},"title":"Findings on past record is necessary before branding a person as habitual criminal","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 25, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of S.S. Shinde and V.K. Jadhav, JJ. allowed a criminal writ petition in terms of remitting the matter to Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, for fresh adjudication on the externment order passed against the petitioner. The petitioner was accused in three criminal cases. The cases\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":326790,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/17\/hindu-deity-can-hold-lands-in-jagir-only-when-cultivated-by-shebait-pujari-and-not-by-tenants-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":347339,"position":3},"title":"Hindu deity can hold lands in Jagir only when cultivated by Shebait\/Pujari and not by tenants: Rajasthan High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"July 17, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court set aside the SDO\u2019s order, and subsequent appellate decisions and remanded back the case to the SDO for a fresh enquiry.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rajasthan High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":341784,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/18\/mp-high-court-directs-sub-divisional-officer-to-maintain-legible-order-sheets-not-treat-election-proceedings-so-casually-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":347339,"position":4},"title":"MP High Court directs Sub Divisional Officer to maintain \u2018legible\u2019 order-sheets & not treat election proceedings \u2018so casually\u2019","author":"Ritu","date":"February 18, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court found the Sub Divisional Officer\u2019s handwritten order-sheets, nearly illegible, making it difficult for the higher authority to discern the proceedings.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madhya Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":220164,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/27\/sc-collegium-resolution-elevation-of-an-advocate-and-judicial-officers-as-judges-in-bombay-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":347339,"position":5},"title":"SC Collegium Resolution | Elevation of an Advocate and Judicial Officers as Judges in Bombay HC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 27, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Proposal for appointment of following one Advocate and seven Judicial Officers, as Judges of the Bombay High Court ADVOCATE: 1 Shri Amit B. Borkar, JUDICIAL OFFICERS: 2 Shri M.G. Sewlikar, 3 Shri V.G. Bisht, 4 Shri B.U. Debadwar, 5 Ms. M.S. Jawalkar, 6 Shri S.P. Tavade, 7 Shri N.R. Borkar,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Appointments & Transfers"","block_context":{"text":"Appointments & Transfers","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/appointments\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/347339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=347339"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/347339\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314919"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=347339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=347339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=347339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}