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

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] 

Whether Plaint can be Rejected only against one of the Defendant(s) [SC JUDGMENT]

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 (d) – Rejection of Plaint - Relief of reject the plaint only against one of the defendant(s) – Held, Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC - the relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s) - the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC - the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole but not in part.

When Magistrate may Dispense with Personal Attendance of Accused [SC Judgment] | First Law

Criminal Procedure Code, 1972 - Ss. 205 & 317 - Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused - Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases - Discussed.