Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar for the v. Mali, Assistant Government Pleader for the State
The Bombay High Court directs the Maharashtra Education Department to follow settled legal precedents and procedural fairness in approval matters, establishes appellate grievance committees, and mandates State action to curb repetitive litigation.
Shridhar K. Berde v. Ranjeetmal J. Oswal & Ors.
The Bombay High Court set aside an eviction decree for failure to comply with mandatory conditions under Section 16(6) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, emphasizing the landlord's obligation to allot equivalent premises in case of demolition and reconstruction.
Qualcomm India Private Limited v. Union of India and others
The Bombay High Court held that interest on delayed service tax refunds under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act is mandatorily payable if refunds are sanctioned beyond three months from application receipt, regardless of intent, and directed payment of such interest to the petitioner.
Ashapura Options Private Limited v. Ashapura Developers
The Bombay High Court granted interim injunction restoring Plaintiffs' possession of commercial premises, holding they had settled possession and were unlawfully dispossessed without due process under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
Vasanti Parsottam Patel v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal and held that death of a bona fide passenger falling from a moving train qualifies as an untoward incident entitling compensation, rejecting reliance on unexamined hearsay to deny the claim.
M/S. TULIP FASHIONS (P) LTD. v. Union of India
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not effected within five years prior to the 2013 Act's commencement.
PNB Housing Finance Ltd v. Ms. Pinky Aggarwal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 upon finding a valid arbitration agreement and timely petition, directing disputes to arbitration.
Grand Paradi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. v. Mont Blanc Properties & Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and K. Raheja Corp Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that it lost jurisdiction to decide an amendment application after automatic statutory transfer of the suit to the City Civil Court under the Bombay City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2023.
Sudesh Verma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act with an award made over five years before the 2013 Act, without possession or compensation, are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
M/S M.R. TOWERS PVT. LTD. v. Union of India and Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years of the award.
Bhim Singh v. Govt of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that a government servant formally appointed to hold charge of a higher post outside his cadre is entitled to the pay of that post under FR 49(iii), quashing the Tribunal’s dismissal of the petitioner’s claim for pay difference as Store Keeper.
Prabhu Dayal v. The State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of the appellant under Sections 302/149 IPC, affirming that mere membership of an unlawful assembly with a common object attracts vicarious liability despite minor contradictions in prosecution evidence.
Rakesh and Anr v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is not taken and compensation not paid within five years of the award.
BAL KISHAN v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings pending for over five years without possession or compensation under the 1894 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.
M/S MKM ESTATES PVT LTD v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act where possession was not taken and compensation not paid within five years of the award are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Hazel Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years of the award.
Nitin Sawhney v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if no possession or compensation occurs within five years prior to the 2013 Act's commencement.
Preet Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act without possession or compensation for over five years before the 2013 Act are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
M/S SOPAN REAL ESTATE (P) LTD v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if no possession or compensation occurs within five years of the award.
Ravinder Kumar v. Govt. of NCT Delhi
Recovery of alleged excess pay from a Group-C employee retiring within one year is impermissible without prior undertaking, quashing the recovery order under State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih.