KGP Vs PKP on 21 November, 2019
Category: High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification
Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. on 22 April, 1993
This a very good judgment from High Court of Bombay talking about binding nature of judgments, specifically termed as state decisis.
Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. on 22 April, 1993Citation: [(1994) 206 ITR 727 (Bom)]
Indiankanoon.org Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/583752/
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Kamlesh Ghanshyam Lohia Vs State of Maharashtra on 23 August, 2019
Good judgment from Hon’ble Bombay High Court which held that mere demand of money not coupled with cruelty does not attract provisions of 498A IPC.
Kamlesh Ghanshyam Lohia Vs State of Maharashtra on 23 August, 2019Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
The Maharashtra Government Vs Shri Rajaram Digamber Padamwar on 8 April, 2011
A Trial judge is taken to task by Bombay High Court for the following vomitings…
From Para 42,
42. Before departing, it is inevitable to make mention that, the learned A.P.P. while making the arguments before the learned Trial Judge cited the Ruling of Kerala High Court in the case of Food Inspector vs James, (reported in Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases) at 1998 (1) P.320, and while discussing the observations made in the said Ruling, the learned Trial Judge has observed in para no.31 of the impugned judgment that :
“With great respect, I do not agree with the ‘view taken’ and observations made by Their Lordships in the above case law. Moreover, the said case law is admittedly of Kerala High Court and the same is not binding on this court.”
One more, from Para 43,
43. Moreover, while making submissions before the learned Trial Judge, learned A.P.P. also cited Ruling in the case of Rambhai vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Reported in Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases) at 1991 (1) P. 6, as stated in para 34 of the impugned judgment, but the learned Trial Judge, after considering the said ratio laid down in the said Ruling, observed in para no.35 of the impugned judgment that :
“After going through the observations made by Their Lordships in the above case law, I am of the opinion that though the Ruling is applicable to the present case, however, according to me, with great respect the view taken in the observations of the Ruling is not correct.“
Final Touch:
From Para 44,
The Maharashtra Government Vs Shri Rajaram Digamber Padamwar on 8 April, 201144. It manifestly appears from the text and tenor of the observations made by the learned Trial Judge in para nos. 31 and 35 of the impugned judgment that same do not conform with the judicial discipline and propriety, and apparently amount to disrespect, and therefore, the Registrar General is directed to take suitable action against the concerned Judge, if he is in Judicial Service.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Ambika Ramakant Uniyal Vs Ramakant Shriram Uniyal on 18 November, 2013
The Bombay High Court has observed that leaving the matrimonial home with personal belongings signifies that there is intention of knife leaving husband/matrimonial home permanently and this can be construed as deserting the husband with out any reasonable cause and that leading to a solid ground for Divorce decree.
Ambika Ramakant Uniyal Vs Ramakant Shriram Uniyal on 18 November, 2013Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Vijayanand Dattaram Naik And 5 Ors. Vs Vishranti Vijayanand Naik on 13 February, 2019.
Based on landmark judgment, the magistrate in this case has ordered to pay maintenance only for six months.
Vijayanand Dattaram Naik And 5 Ors. Vs Vishranti Vijayanand Naik on 13 February, 2019.Landmark judgment here
Shriram Munjaji Raut Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011
Bombay High Court has given 1 month imprisonment for a person for giving false evidence in a case. And maximum fine allowed under 344 CrPC, which is paltry Rs.500/- And if Rs.500/- not paid, 1 more week of imprisonment.
Shriram Munjaji Raut Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011So 1 week of imprisonment = Rs.500/- ???
