Mere Roadshow By Star Campaigner On Polling Day Not 'Undue Influence': Bombay High Court Upholds Election Of Shinde Sena Leader

A mere visit to a constituency by a 'Star Campaigner' on the polling day would not be enough to constitute 'undue influence' or 'corrupt practice' under the Representation of People Act of 1951, held the Bombay High Court. The High Court also refused to accept that a mere visit by then Chief Minister Eknath Shinde in Mumbai's Chandivali area during the 2025 State Assembly elections, which...

[Maharashtra Co-Op Societies Act] 50% Deposit Mandatory Even If Revision Challenges Only Consequential Recovery Steps: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the requirement of depositing 50% of the recoverable dues under Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, is mandatory even when a revision application challenges only consequential or derivative actions taken pursuant to a recovery certificate and not the recovery certificate itself. The Court observed that permitting litigants...

Order VIII Rule 1A CPC Not A Bar To Producing Documents For Cross-Examining Witness: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a defendant is not required to file a separate application for the production of documents that are sought to be used for confronting a witness during cross-examination, provided such documents are not foreign to the pleadings in the case. The Court observed that the Civil Procedure Code expressly carves out an exception permitting production of documents...

Documents Collected During Investigation Are Not Evidence In Departmental Inquiry Unless Proved By Competent Witness: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that findings in a departmental inquiry cannot be based merely on documents collected during an investigation unless their contents are proved through competent witnesses who can speak to their authenticity. The Court observed that the Enquiry Officer has duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties....

Notification Of Kolhapur Circuit Bench Doesn't Automatically Divest Principal Seat Of Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the establishment of the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur does not automatically divest the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court of jurisdiction in matters where the original and appellate authorities whose orders are challenged are located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat. The Court observed that the order passed by an appellate...

[Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act] Pendency Of Civil Suit On Construction Irregularities Not A Bar To Deemed Conveyance: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that pendency of a civil suit concerning alleged construction irregularities or inter se disputes between promoters does not bar the grant of deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The Court observed that an order of deemed conveyance does not finally adjudicate title and that civil disputes regarding FSI utilisation...

[Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act] Private Agreements Cannot Override Statutory Duty To Grant Deemed Conveyance: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that internal agreements or contractual clauses between the promoter and flat purchasers cannot override the statutory mandate of granting deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. The Court observed that once construction is completed in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the society is formed, the promoter's...

Bombay High Court Judge Duped Of Rs 6 Lakhs In Online Credit Card Fraud

A sitting Bombay High Court judge last week, filed a complaint with the Mumbai Police alleging that she has been duped in an online credit card fraud to the tune of Rs 6 lakhs. The female judge, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against an unknown person, who claimed to be a representative of the HDFC Bank's credit card department and defrauded her of Rs 6 lakhs. According to her FIR...

[Land Acquisition Act] 'Compensation U/S 28A Cannot Be Restricted To Compensation Awarded In Foundational Award': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that compensation determined in proceedings under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be restricted only to the amount awarded in the “foundational award” relied upon for redetermination. The Court observed that Section 28-A is a beneficial provision enacted to remove inequality in compensation between landowners whose lands are acquired...

Criminal Case Cannot Continue In Hope Of Finding Offender When No Prima Facie Offence Is Disclosed: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that an investigating agency cannot continue a criminal investigation merely in the hope of discovering unknown accused persons when the preliminary enquiry does not disclose the commission of any prima facie offence. The Court observed that the machinery of criminal law cannot be set in motion to conduct a roving and fishing inquiry where the material...

'Security Paramount': Bombay High Court Rejects Plea Of Cab Drivers To Offer Namaz At Mumbai Airport Premises

The Bombay High Court on Thursday, while refusing to permit Muslim drivers and passengers to offer Namaz at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA), even for the limited period of Ramadan, made it clear that it cannot, at any cost, compromise the security of the airport and whether it is religion or something else, court will only favour security. A division bench of...

Employees' Compensation Act Claim Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because Disability Certificate Was Issued By Non-Treating Doctor: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has held that an application for compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who did not attend to the injured workman. The Court observed that the Act only requires the certificate to be issued by a “qualified medical practitioner” and does not mandate that...