Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Vanshika v. University of Delhi & Anr.
Delhi High Court held that a student eligible but unable to appear in first semester exams due to fee payment failure must be allowed to continue studies and appear in subsequent exams when permitted by university authorities.
Amol Ankush Parge & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the murder convictions of two accused while acquitting others due to insufficient evidence of common unlawful assembly and involvement.
Harish Bodh & Anr v. Kotak Mahindra Bank & Anr
The Delhi High Court held that applications under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC to set aside execution sale on grounds of fraud or irregularity must be filed within 60 days as per Article 127 of the Limitation Act, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to condone delay in such applications.
Kiran B. Pulekar v. The Union of India
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging termination for unauthorized absence, holding that due disciplinary procedure was followed and allegations of malice were unsubstantiated.
M/s. Shah Rameshchandra Nihalchand & Co. and Others v. S. Bose Commissioner of Tax-13 and The State of Maharashtra
The High Court held that partners of a firm cannot be impleaded as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without prior sanction under Section 279 of the Income Tax Act and in absence of prima facie evidence under Section 278B, setting aside the Sessions Court order allowing such impleadment.
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD v. SH JASPREET DHINGRA
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that deleting a question with a typographical error and denying marks to candidates who correctly answered it was unjust, directing the awarding of marks to avoid prejudice.
EXHIBITIONS PVT. LTD. v. BUSWORLD INTERNATIONAL CVBA
The Delhi High Court held that patent illegality is not a ground to challenge an international commercial arbitral award and directed deposit of the awarded amount under Claim II to maintain stay, while reserving jurisdictional issues on Claim I for further consideration.
Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Limited v. State of Maharashtra
The High Court held that a registered Development Agreement creates a subsisting legal interest that cannot be unilaterally cancelled, and upheld the validity of attachment of the developer’s rights under recovery proceedings, quashing the Revisional Authority’s order that exceeded its jurisdiction.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra Alias Golu
The Supreme Court held that the respondent's acts went beyond mere preparation and constituted an attempt to commit rape under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC, restoring his conviction and sentence.
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR alleging criminal offences in a loan recovery dispute, holding it to be a civil matter and abuse of criminal process.
Citizen Constructions v. Parvez Mohammed Yusuf Kokani
The High Court modified a blanket injunction restraining transfer of a disputed plot, emphasizing the need to balance equities where the plaintiff’s claim is based on an unregistered agreement executed before vendors acquired title, while the defendant holds registered sale deed and has commenced construction.
Shyamsundar Radhyesham Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail in a land forgery case involving long-registered documents and delayed FIR, balancing liberty with investigation safeguards.
Babita Goyal v. Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court held that disputes under an arbitration agreement must be referred to arbitration if the Section 11(6) petition is filed within three years of the arbitration notice, without examining limitation or merits at this stage.
Sandeep Thakur v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of UDCPR parking provisions but directed NMMC to conduct a fresh expert study and amend regulations to ensure adequate parking, emphasizing limited judicial interference in subordinate legislation unless manifest arbitrariness is shown.
The State of Maharashtra v. Shri Chandrakant Dhondiram Gurav
The High Court set aside a dismissal order due to unfair departmental enquiry lacking opportunity for cross-examination, directing reinstatement with 50% backwages while emphasizing adherence to natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Yasin Gulab Shikalkar v. Maruti Nagnath Aware & Ors.
The Bombay High Court allowed the petitioner’s writ petition directing re-measurement of disputed land by appointing a Court Commissioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, rejecting the res judicata objection and emphasizing the appellate court’s power to admit additional evidence.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Supreme Metal Industries
The High Court held that unauthorized commercial use of electricity in industrial premises attracts mandatory twice-rate penalty under Section 126, and only the registered consumer or authorized person can appeal under Section 127, rejecting tenant's claim to consumer status.
M/S NORTH EASTERN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. v. M/S ASHOK PAPER MILL (ASSAM) LTD.
The Supreme Court held that appeals under the Jogighopa Act are not governed by Article 116 of the Limitation Act, and in absence of prescribed limitation, appeals must be filed within reasonable time, allowing the delayed appeal filed by the appellant.
Raptakos Breet & Company Ltd. v. Gajanan M. Sonawane
The Bombay High Court modified orders awarding back wages to a dismissed employee, directing lump sum compensation instead, affirming limited interference with Labour Court findings under Article 227.
National Iranian Tanker Company v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd
The Bombay High Court upheld an arbitral award holding a demurrage claim time-barred, ruling that correspondence on undisputed invoices did not reset the limitation period under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.