Bombay High Court
S. 24 Specific Relief Act Does Not Bar Fresh Suit For Refund Of Earnest Money After Dismissal Of Specific Performance Suit: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 24 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, does not bar a plaintiff from filing a fresh suit for refund of earnest money even after dismissal of a suit for specific performance. The Court observed that while Section 24 bars claims for compensation in certain circumstances, it does not extinguish the right to seek other reliefs such as a refund of...
Railway Claims Tribunal Cannot Infer Death Due To Trespass Solely From Nature Of Injuries: Bombay High Court Allows Compensation
The Bombay High Court has held that the Railway Claims Tribunal is not an expert body competent to conclude that death occurred due to trespass merely on the basis of the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. The Court observed that in the absence of cogent evidence or expert testimony, such findings are unsustainable and cannot be used to deny compensation under the Railways...
Authorities Cannot Rely On 8-Year-Old Notice To Recover Provident Fund Dues Or Freeze Bank Accounts: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that authorities cannot freeze bank accounts or recover provident fund dues without issuing a fresh notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected party. The Court observed that reliance on a stale notice issued several years earlier violates principles of natural justice and renders the recovery action unsustainable.Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar...
Bombay High Court Upholds Closure Of Hotel Over Alleged Prostitution, Says Prior Conviction Not Needed Under Immoral Trafficking Act
The Bombay High Court has held that an order directing closure or eviction of premises under Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, does not require a prior conviction of the owner, occupier or lessor. The Court observed that Section 18(1) is a preventive provision enabling action based on material indicating use of premises as a brothel, whereas the requirement...
Gram Panchayat Employees Absorbed In Municipal Corporation Entitled To Equal Pay For Equal Work: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that employees absorbed from Gram Panchayats into a Municipal Corporation are entitled to parity in pay with regular employees if they perform identical duties. The Court observed that denial of equal pay for equal work in such circumstances amounts to discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.A division bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni...
Bombay High Court Monthly Digest: February 2026
Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 49 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 88]Care Health Insurance Ltd vs Manjula Haresh Joisar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 49Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala vs Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad Poddar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 50Anita Naik vs State, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 51High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own motion vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 52Madhu...
Probate Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes; Person Challenging Testator's Ownership Is Stranger To Proceedings: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that questions relating to title or ownership of property cannot be adjudicated in probate proceedings and that a person who challenges the testator's title to the property bequeathed under a will is a stranger to probate jurisdiction. The Court observed that probate proceedings are confined to examining the genuineness and due execution of the will, and any...
Civil Court Can Use Section 151 CPC To Dismiss Suit As Infructuous If Cause Of Action Ceases: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that a civil court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to dismiss a suit as infructuous when subsequent events render the original cause of action non-existent. The Court observed that it is the duty of the court to terminate infructuous litigation, and it cannot retain such suits merely to preserve...
Improper Joinder Of Causes Of Action Not Grounds To Reject Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that an objection regarding improper joinder of causes of action raises a triable issue and cannot be a ground for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court observed that such objections require adjudication on evidence and cannot justify dismissal of a suit at the threshold.Justice Gauri Godse was hearing an...
NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Prove Actual Cultivation Of Cannabis, Mere Presence On Land Not Enough: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that in cases involving the alleged cultivation of cannabis under the NDPS Act, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish through cogent evidence that the accused was actually cultivating the plants, and not merely present at the spot or named in land records. The Court observed that asking the accused to prove that he was not cultivating the land would...
“Unjust To Sustain Departmental Findings After Acquittal On Identical Evidence”: Bombay High Court Quashes CISF Officer's Dismissal
The Bombay High Court has held that dismissal from service based on findings in departmental proceedings cannot be sustained where the delinquent employee has been acquitted in a criminal trial arising from the same incident and based on identical evidence. The Court observed that where the charges, witnesses, evidence, and circumstances in both proceedings are substantially the same,...
Scheme For Reserving 25% Seats Under RTE Cannot Be Used Multiple Times For Admission Of Same Child: Bombay High Court
The scheme for reserving 25 per cent seats for the underprivileged under the Right To Education (RTE) Act is designed to distribute educational opportunities among as many eligible children but the said scheme does not confer a right on a parent to seek allocation of a seat multiple times for the same child, held the Bombay High Court recently. A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi...