Best Of 2022- Important Judgments Of Bombay High Court

LiveLaw reported 527 judgements from Bombay High Court in 2022. Here are some of the important decisions:Can't Decide Whether A Film's Material Denigrates A Community Or Not Without A Challenge To Censor Certificate: Bombay High Court Case Title: Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta vs Bhansali Productions Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 50 There can be no prohibition on a film's exhibition in...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- December 2019

Consumer Forums/Commissions Cannot Consider Complaint/Appeal On Merits After Finding That It Is Time Barred M/S. Singal Udyog V. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. The Supreme Court observed that a Consumer Forum/Commission after having come to the conclusion that the complaint/appeal was barred by limitation, could not consider the merits of the matter. The bench...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- November 2019

SC Keeps Sabarimala Review Pending Till Larger Bench Decides Issues Of Essential Religious Practices Kantaru Rajeevaru V. Indian Young Lawyers Association The Supreme Court by 3 :2 majority, decided to keep the review petitions in Sabarimala matter pending until a larger bench determines questions related to essential religious practices. The majority of CJI Ranjan Gogoi,...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- October 2019

Succession To Mutawalliship By Descendant Through Female Line Not Barred Md. Abrar vs. Meghalaya Board of Wakf The Supreme Court held that there is no legal bar on cognatic heirs of the waqif from succeeding to mutawalliship. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi reiterated that in order to establish a claim...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- September 2019

Unregistered Agreement Of Sale Can Be Used As An Evidence For Collateral Purpose Prakash Sahu V. Saulal The Supreme Court recently upheld a Trial Court order allowing the plaintiff to lead evidence on insufficiently stamped unregistered agreement of sale in his suit for recovery of earnest money said to be paid by him at the time executing the agreement for sale. Order...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- August 2019

Section 313 CrPC: Inculpatory Material As Not Put To The Accused Must Be Eschewed Samsul Haque vs. State of Assam The Supreme Court has reiterated that the incriminating material that came in evidence is to be put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph said that...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- July 2019

Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: Plaint Can Either Be Rejected As A Whole Or Not At All Madhav Prasad Aggarwal vs. Axis Bank Plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all, remarked the Supreme Court while reiterating that it is not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular portion of a plaint including against some of the defendant(s) and continue the same against...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- June 2019

Cannot Burden Insurer To Follow Up An Inadequate Disclosure Of Material Facts By The Insured Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mahendra Construction The Supreme Court observed that it is duty of the insured while making the proposal to make a clear and specific disclosure of material facts and that the insurer cannot be burdened to follow up an inadequate disclosure. As per...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- May 2019

Statutory Appeal Can Be Filed Even If Application To Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree [ Order IX Rule 13 CPC] Is Dismissed Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangaram More The Supreme Court observed that the right of appeal under Section 96(2) CPC is a statutory right and the defendant cannot be deprived of the statutory right of appeal merely on the ground that the application filed by...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- April 2019

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. V. Govindan Raghavan The Supreme Court held that the incorporation of one-sided clauses in a builder-buyer agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justice...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- March 2019

If Contempt Is In The Face Of Court, Judges Can Take Immediate Action Without Issuing Notice National Lawyers Campaign For Judicial Transparency and Reforms V. Union of India To hold Advocate Mathews Nedumpara guilty of contempt, the Supreme Court followed the dictum that when contempt is in the face of court, summary procedure can be followed to inflict punishment "then and...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- February 2019

Significant Rulings Minority Status Of Aligarh Muslim University: SC Refers The Matter To Seven Judge Bench The Supreme Court referred to seven-judge bench the issue of determining the correctness of minority status granted to Aligarh Muslim University. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred the matter to the larger bench for defining the parameters...