Skip to main content

Latest & Important Bombay High Court Judgments January 2019

Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - S. 5 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 109, 120B, 302, 307, 324, 325, 326 & 379 - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - S. 3 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Discharge Application - the stage for rebuttal can only be during trial and not at the stage of consideration of discharge application - scope of discharge application is entirely different than the scope for deciding the guilt of an accused at the end of any trialKawalnayan Wazirchand Pathreja v. State of Maharashtra, Indrajit Mahanty & Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwa, JJ. Crl.A. No. 58 of 2018 17-01-2019


Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Ss. 138, 139 & 146 - Even though the complainant adduced sufficient evidence on the point of formation of firm, running business and on the point of dissolution of firm, he falls short in proving the case of settlement of accounts and arrival of share amount. Unless that is done, liability cannot be fastened on the accused. Tejendrasingh Gopalsingh Bagga v. Ravindrakumar Gulabchand Jain, Shriram Madhusudan Modak, J. Crl.A. No. 103 of 2008 17-01-2019



Civil P.C. 1908 - O. 21 R. 41  - Direction against the Defendants / Judgment Debtors to file an affidavit stating the particulars of their assets (movable and immovable) - Maintainability of the Chamber Summons. Bhupesh Sevantilal Shah v. Bhoomi Tractors Sales & Services, B.P. Colabawalla, J. C.S. No. 1098 of 2017 14-01-2019

Succession Act, 1925 - S.301 - Will - Removal of executor or administrator and provision for successor - Whether the application under Section 301 of the Succession Act can be made only by a beneficiary or legatee, who accepts the Will and, as to whether it cannot be made by a person who seeks to dislodge the Will or contest the application for probate or Letters of Administration with Will annexed'. Radhika Bhargava v. Dr. Arjun Sahagal, B.R. Gavai & Riya I. Chagla, JJ. Appeal No. 56 of 2017 11-01-2019

Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 (Bombay) - S. 7 - Unauthorized Occupation of the Premises. Shri Shyam Ramapati Pandey v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Thr. Divisional Controller, Nagpur, Manish Pitale, J. W.P. No. 5863 of 2017 11-01-2019

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - There can be punishment under Section 302 of IPC only when the case falls under either of the clauses of firstly to fourthly of Section 300 of IPC. Suresh Sadhuji Ghogre (in Jail) v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Kotwali, Nagpur, S.B. Shukre & S.M. Modak JJ. Crl.A. No. 361 of 2016 11-01-2019

Prohibition Act, 1949 (Maharashtra) - S. 65 (e) - Penalty for illegal import, etc. of intoxicant or hemp - Accused is old aged lady about 59 years. She is contesting this case from the year 2009. Therefore, judicial discretion can be used to meet the ends of justice. Shobha Baburao Shende (in Jail) v. State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. Nagbhid, Chandrapur, M.G. Giratkar, J. Crl. Rev. No. 157 of 2015 11-01-2019

Income Tax Act, 1961 - S. 260A - the reasons which are recorded by the A.O. for reopening the assessment are the only reasons which can be considered. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No addition can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Marhatta Chamber of Commerce Industries and Agriculture, Akil Kureshi & B.P. Colabawalla, JJ. I.T.A No. 965 of 2016 11-01-2019

Trusts Act, 1882 - S. 17 - Trustee to be impartial. Kamleshsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan v. Gangasingh Motisingh Chowhan, B.R. Gavai & R.I. Chagla, JJ. C.A. No. 551 of 2004 11-01-2019

Popular posts from this blog

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 -  failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record    whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - ­8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...