Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
e71fbc220ed06e5072bf923dd338a0e1db8d40f5f1b811f65ffad623c4672e5b
The court upheld the Haryana Urban Development Authority's right to recover interest on delayed land acquisition and development charge payments under statutory notifications, rejecting objections on retrospective applicability and procedural grounds.
Maharani Ahilyadevi Samaj Prabodhan Manch, Maharashtra Rajya, Mumbai & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Presidential Order listing 'Dhangad' as a Scheduled Tribe, rejecting petitions seeking to substitute it with 'Dhangar' and clarifying the limited judicial role in interpreting such orders.
Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the State of Maharashtra's jurisdiction to levy stamp duty on documents related to imported goods cleared through customs, dismissing challenges to the levy as legally sustainable under the Maharashtra Stamp Act.
Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors
The Bombay High Court consolidated multiple writ petitions challenging the State of Maharashtra's administrative actions on stamp duties, customs, and port operations, holding that such actions must conform to statutory authority and principles of natural justice.
Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors
The Bombay High Court held that administrative actions by Maharashtra's registration, customs, and port authorities must adhere to statutory mandates and procedural fairness, quashing those beyond legal authority in consolidated writ petitions by corporate entities.
Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors
The Bombay High Court held that the State of Maharashtra can validly impose stamp duty on transactions involving goods handled through customs and port authorities, subject to statutory compliance and absence of conflict with central laws.
Pawansingh Ambarsingh Janghale v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that the Supreme Court's Jarnail Singh decision impliedly overruled its earlier Vijay Ghogre judgment, validating reservation in promotion for SC/ST without quantifiable data and permitting supernumerary appointments pending final adjudication.
Dattatray Maruti Bansude & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the quashing of a Government Resolution that sought to recruit candidates beyond advertised vacancies in the LDCE 2016 PSI recruitment, affirming that such excess recruitment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that LDCE is a promotional selection process.
Viraj Chetan Shah v Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that executive Office Memoranda empowering public sector banks to request Look Out Circulars against loan defaulters violate Article 21 as they lack statutory authority and procedural safeguards, rendering such LOCs unconstitutional.
Viraj Chetan Shah v Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that executive instructions empowering public sector banks to request Look Out Circulars against defaulters violate Article 21 and are ultra vires, invalidating such LOCs issued without statutory authority or due process.
Viraj Chetan Shah v Union of India & Anr
The Bombay High Court declared unconstitutional the executive Office Memoranda empowering public sector banks to request Look Out Circulars restricting overseas travel, affirming that such fundamental rights can only be curtailed by valid law with due process.
Viraj Chetan Shah v Union of India & Anr
The Bombay High Court struck down executive Office Memoranda empowering public sector banks to request Look Out Circulars restricting overseas travel of defaulters, holding such measures unconstitutional for lacking statutory authority and procedural safeguards under Article 21.
Viraj Chetan Shah v Union of India & Anr
The Bombay High Court held that Look Out Circulars issued at the request of public sector banks without statutory authority violate fundamental rights under Article 21 and are unconstitutional.
Viraj Chetan Shah v Union of India & Anr
The Bombay High Court declared unconstitutional the issuance of Look Out Circulars at the request of public sector banks under executive Office Memoranda, holding that such restrictions on the fundamental right to travel abroad require statutory authority and procedural safeguards.
Viraj Chetan Shah v Union of India & Anr
The Bombay High Court held that Look Out Circulars issued at the request of public sector banks under executive Office Memoranda without statutory authority violate the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 and are unconstitutional.
Viraj Chetan Shah v Union of India & Anr
The Bombay High Court held that Look Out Circulars issued at the request of public sector banks under executive Office Memoranda without statutory authority or procedural safeguards violate the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21.
Viraj Chetan Shah v Union of India & Anr
The Bombay High Court held that executive Office Memoranda empowering public sector banks to request Look Out Circulars against alleged defaulters violate Article 21 and are unconstitutional without statutory authority and procedural safeguards.
Viraj Chetan Shah v Union of India & Anr
The Bombay High Court held that executive Office Memoranda allowing public sector banks to request Look Out Circulars against alleged defaulters violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, lacking statutory authority and procedural safeguards, and are therefore unconstitutional.
Viraj Chetan Shah v Union of India & Anr
The Bombay High Court invalidated executive Office Memoranda empowering public sector banks to request Look Out Circulars restricting overseas travel, holding such actions violate Article 21 and the Passports Act, 1967.
Viraj Chetan Shah v Union of India & Anr
The Bombay High Court held that executive Office Memoranda empowering public sector banks to request Look Out Circulars against alleged defaulters violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution due to lack of statutory authority and procedural safeguards, rendering such LOCs unconstitutional.