Weekly Email Service

Current's

WEEKLY EMAIL SERVICE

[Maharashtra Law Updates - Supreme Court and Bombay High Court]

Issue No: 1 of 2026

Issue Date: 03/01/2026

INDEX

Part 1 - Latest Maharashtra GRs

Part 2 - Latest Changes in Maharashtra Laws

Part 3 - Latest Supreme Court and Bombay High Court Digest

PART 1
LATEST MAHARASHTRA GRs

[1] - Higher and Technical Education Department [22-12-2025]

Regarding the application of the old pension scheme, on the lines of the Central Government, to government officers/employees for whom recruitment advertisements/notifications were issued before November 1, 2005, but who joined government service on or after November 1, 2005.

To View GR : Click Here

----------

[2] - Industries, Energy and Labour Department [23-12-2025]

Regarding the formation of a committee to provide capital subsidies for projects related to coal gasification and downstream derivatives and green steel production...

To View GR : Click Here

----------

[3] - Industries, Energy and Labour Department [24-12-2025]

Regarding the exemption of stamp duty and registration fees for land development and sub-development agreements/lease and sub-lease agreements of solar power projects to be installed under the scheme for solarization of extra-high voltage and high voltage lift irrigation schemes, and regarding the provision of government land for these projects on lease and sub-lease at a nominal annual rate of Rs. 1/-.

To View GR : Click Here

----------

[4] - Law and Judiciary Department [22-12-2025]

Regarding consideration of uninterrupted service for sanction of non-functional pay scale to be granted after four years of regular service to Section Officer cadre.

To View GR : Click Here

----------

[5] - Law and Judiciary Department [23-12-2025]

Regarding granting exemption, as a special case and with retrospective effect, from passing the Departmental Post-Entry Examination to all employees appointed before 14.11.2025 to the posts of Superintendent (Group-B), Head Clerk, and Senior Clerk (Group-C) in the Registrar of Partnership Firms office.

To View GR : Click Here

----------

[6] - Revenue and Forest Department [22-12-2025]

Regarding the declaration of appointing authorities for direct recruitment, promotion, and deputation of employees in Group B (non-gazetted), Group C, and Group D cadres of the Land Records Department.

To View GR : Click Here

----------

[7] - Revenue and Forest Department [23-12-2025]

Regarding granting permission to erect advertising hoardings on government land.

To View GR : Click Here

----------

[8] - Revenue and Forest Department [24-12-2025]

Regarding granting permission to gas and oil companies to lay pipelines through government land.

To View GR : Click Here

----------

[9] - Social Justice and Special Assistance Department [22-12-2025]

Regarding the disbursement of long-term loans to cooperative spinning mills of backward classes... Regarding the sanctioning of loans to spinning mills in the financial year 2025-26.

To View GR : Click Here

----------

[10] - Tribal Development Department [27-11-2025]

As per Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 Rules,2008 and Amendment Rules, 2012 and Provisions of Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas Act),1996 determining the procedure regarding transportation Permit for minor forest produce in scheduled areas.

To View GR : Click Here

----------

PART 2
LATEST CHANGES IN MAHARASHTRA LAWS

The Maharashtra Village Panchayats and Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Amendment) Act, 2025

MAHARASHTRA ACT No. XLVIII OF 2025

(First published, after having received the assent of the Governor in the “Maharashtra Government Gazette”, on the 26th December 2025.)

An Act further to amend the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.

WHEREAS both Houses of the State Legislature were not in session;

AND WHEREAS, the Governor of Maharashtra was satisfied that circumstances existed which rendered it necessary for him to take immediate action further to amend the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (III of 1959) and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (Mah. V of 1962), for the purposes hereinafter appearing; and, therefore, promulgated the Maharashtra Village Panchayats and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025 (Mah. Ord. XII of 2025), on the 3rd November 2025;

AND WHEREAS it is expedient to replace the said Ordinance, by an Act of the State Legislature; it is hereby enacted in the Seventy-sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-

CHAPTER I

PRELIMINARY

1. Short title and commencement.- (1) This Act may be called the Maharashtra Village Panchayats and Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Amendment) Act, 2025.

(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 3rd November 2025.

CHAPTER II

AMENDMENTS TO THE MAHARASHTRA VILLAGE PANCHAYATS ACT

2. Amendment of section 10-1A of III of 1959.- In section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (III of 1959) (hereinafter, in this Chapter, referred to as “the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act”), for the existing provisos, the following provisos shall be substituted, namely:-

“Provided that, a person who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his Caste Certificate before the date of filing of the nomination papers, but who has not received the Validity Certificate on the date of filing of the nomination papers shall submit, alongwith the nomination papers,-

(i) a true copy of the application submitted by him to the Scrutiny Committee for issuance of the Validity Certificate or any other proof of having made such application to the Scrutiny Committee; and

(ii) an undertaking that he shall submit the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee, within a period of six months from the date on which he is declared elected:

Provided further that, if such person fails to produce the Validity Certificate within a period of six months from the date on which he is declared elected, his election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for being a member.”.

3. Amendment of section 30-1A of III of 1959.- In section 30-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, for the existing provisos, the following provisos shall be substituted, namely:-

(ii) an undertaking that he shall submit the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee, within a period of six months from the date on which he is declared elected:

CHAPTER III

AMENDMENTS TO THE MAHARASHTRA ZILLA PARISHADS AND PANCHAYAT SAMITIS ACT, 1961

4. Amendment of section 12A of Mah. V of 1962.- In section 12A of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (Mah. V of 1962) (hereinafter, in this Chapter, referred to as “the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act”), for the existing provisos, the following provisos shall be substituted, namely:-

(ii) an undertaking that he shall submit the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee, within a period of six months from the date on which he is declared elected:

5. Amendment of section 42 of Mah. V of 1962.- In section 42 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, in sub-section (6A), for the existing provisos, the following provisos shall be substituted, namely:-

(ii) an undertaking that he shall submit the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee within a period of six months from the date on which he is declared elected:

6. Amendment of section 67 of Mah. V of 1962.- In section 67 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, in sub-section (7A), for the existing provisos, the following provisos shall be substituted, namely:-

(ii) an undertaking that he shall submit the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee, within a period of six months from the date on which he is declared elected:

7. Repeal of Mah. Ord. XII of 2025 and saving.- (1) The Maharashtra Village Panchayats and the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025 (Mah. Ord. XII of 2025), is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken (including any notification or order issued) under the corresponding provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (III of 1959) and Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (Mah. V of 1962), as amended by the said Ordinance, shall be deemed to have been done, taken or issued, as the case may be, under the corresponding provisions of the relevant Acts, as amended by this Act.

-------------------

PART 3
SUBJECT INDEX

[1] - CONSORTIUM ARBITRATION - [Supreme Court of India] - (17-12-2025)

[2] - PROOF OF WILL - [Supreme Court of India] - (17-12-2025)

[3] - DEFINITION OF WORKMAN - [Supreme Court of India] - (17-12-2025)

[4] - POWER TARIFF DETERMINATION - [Supreme Court of India] - (16-12-2025)

[5] - HOSTILE WITNESSES - [Supreme Court of India] - (16-12-2025)

[6] - SARFAESI IN NAGALAND - [Supreme Court of India] - (16-12-2025)

[7] - MURDER ACQUITTAL - [Supreme Court of India] - (16-12-2025)

[8] - AUCTION SALE VALIDITY - [Supreme Court of India] - (15-12-2025)

[9] - FAULTY INVESTIGATION AND CONVICTION - [Supreme Court of India] - (15-12-2025)

[10] - DOWRY DEATH - [Supreme Court of India] - (15-12-2025)

[11] - MEMBERSHIP RIGHTS - [Bombay High Court] - (24-12-2025)

[12] - JUDICIAL EXAMINATION - [Bombay High Court] - (24-12-2025)

[13] - LABOUR REGULARIZATION - [Bombay High Court] - (24-12-2025)

[14] - JURISDICTION ISSUE - [Bombay High Court] - (23-12-2025)

[15] - EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION - [Bombay High Court] - (23-12-2025)

[16] - DEEMED CONVEYANCE - [Bombay High Court] - (23-12-2025)

[17] - CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION - [Bombay High Court] - (22-12-2025)

[18] - LEAVE AND LICENSE - [Bombay High Court] - (20-12-2025)

[19] - REDEVELOPMENT JURISDICTION - [Bombay High Court] - (19-12-2025)

[20] - REPRESENTATION RIGHT - [Bombay High Court] - (19-12-2025)

[21] - SALE PERMISSION CANCELLATION - [Bombay High Court] - (19-12-2025)

[22] - GRAM PANCHAYAT DISSOLUTION - [Bombay High Court] - (19-12-2025)

[23] - COMPENSATION FOR LAND UTILISED - [Bombay High Court] - (03-12-2025)

[24] - POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTIONS - [Bombay High Court] - (02-12-2025)

[25] - UNEARNED INCOME DEMAND - [Bombay High Court] - (01-12-2025)

PART 3
LATEST SUPREME COURT AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT DIGEST

[1] - CONSORTIUM ARBITRATION

2026(1)WES1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Telangana High Court]

(Hon'ble Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha ; Atul S Chandurkar, J.)

Civil Appeal; Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 14836 of 2025; 8998 of 2023, 13200 of 2023, dated 17-12-2025

Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited (Apgenco) vs. Tecpro Systems Limited & Ors

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 11 - Consortium Arbitration - Appellant invited bids for EPC work through consortium agreement containing arbitration clause - Consortium led by first respondent executed contract and commenced work - Later, first respondent faced financial distress and leadership transferred to another member - First respondent invoked arbitration clause individually after being declared insolvent - Appellant objected that arbitration agreement existed only with consortium, not individual member - High Court constituted arbitral tribunal holding existence of arbitration clause sufficient at referral stage - Apex court held that High Court correctly applied prima facie test and that arbitral tribunal must decide on individual member's capacity and other preliminary issues - Appointment of arbitral tribunal upheld - Reference to arbitration sustained - Appeals Dismissed

Law Point : At Section 11 stage, court's role is confined to prima facie satisfaction on existence of arbitration agreement - Capacity or validity of invocation are to be examined by arbitral tribunal, not by referral court

Acts Referred:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sec. 11

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[2] - PROOF OF WILL

2026(1)WES2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Kerala High Court]

(Hon'ble Ahsanuddin Amanullah ; K Vinod Chandran, J.)

Civil Appeal No 14825 of 202, 14826 of 2025, dated 17-12-2025

K S Dinachandran vs. Shyla Joseph & Ors

Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 68, Sec. 71 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 Sec. 63 - Proof of Will - Dispute arose over exclusion of one heir under will executed by deceased - Trial and appellate courts held will unproved as attesting witness failed to depose about attestation by other witness - Apex court affirmed that due execution requires proof of testator's signature and attestation by two witnesses, at least one proving both attestations - Failure to satisfy Sec. 68 renders will unproved - Concurrent findings upheld - Appeals Dismissed

Law Point : To prove a will, at least one attesting witness must testify to execution by testator and attestation by both witnesses - Omission to prove attestation by other witness invalidates proof of execution under Section 68 of Evidence Act

Acts Referred:

Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 68, Sec. 71
Indian Succession Act, 1925 Sec. 63

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[3] - DEFINITION OF WORKMAN

2026(1)WES3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Orissa High Court]

(Hon'ble Prashant Kumar Mishra ; N V Anjaria, J.)

Civil Appeal No 15131 of 2025, dated 17-12-2025

Srinibas Goradia vs. Arvind Kumar Sahu & Ors

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Sec. 25F, Sec. 2 - Definition of Workman - Dispute related to termination of employee claiming reinstatement under Industrial Disputes Act - Labour Court held appellant to be workman engaged in clerical duties and directed reinstatement - High Court reversed holding him supervisory employee not covered by definition - Supreme Court examined duties and nature of work performed - Found no independent supervisory power or managerial control - Duties essentially clerical and operational in nature - Held appellant workman within meaning of Act - Termination without compliance of Sec.25F invalid - Labour Court award restored - Appeals Allowed

Law Point : Determination of whether employee qualifies as workman depends on actual nature of duties and not designation; absence of managerial or supervisory control brings employee within statutory protection of Industrial Disputes Act.

Acts Referred:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Sec. 25F, Sec. 2

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[4] - POWER TARIFF DETERMINATION

2026(1)WES4

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Hon'ble J B Pardiwala ; K V Viswanathan, J.)

Civil Appeal No 5700 of 2014, dated 16-12-2025

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd vs. Penna Electricity Limited

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 Sec. 43A - Electricity Act, 2003 Sec. 178, Sec. 61, Sec. 86 - Power Tariff Determination - Dispute concerned whether electricity supplied before commercial operation date under amended PPA constituted firm or infirm power - Regulatory Commission and Appellate Tribunal held supply from open cycle gas turbine continuous and therefore firm - Appellant contended such supply prior to COD liable only for variable charges - Court held that under Electricity Act and applicable regulations, power continuously supplied from operational unit before combined cycle completion is firm power - Approval of PPA immaterial when aligned with statutory norms - Direction to pay fixed charges upheld - Appeal Dismissed

Law Point : Power generated continuously from commissioned unit before combined cycle completion is treated as firm power - Utility bound to pay fixed charges per regulatory norms and aligned PPA terms

Acts Referred:

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 Sec. 43A
Electricity Act, 2003 Sec. 178, Sec. 61, Sec. 86

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[5] - HOSTILE WITNESSES

2026(1)WES5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Gujarat High Court]

(Hon'ble Sanjay Karol ; Vipul M Pancholi, J.)

Criminal Appeal No 890 of 2017, 891 of 2017, dated 16-12-2025

Jayantibhai Chaturbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 376 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 313 - Hostile Witnesses - Appellant doctor convicted for sexual assault on patient - Victim and husband turned hostile at trial but medical and forensic evidence confirmed intercourse with matching semen stains - High Court enhanced sentence considering corroborative evidence reliable despite hostile witnesses - Apex court upheld conviction observing that hostile testimony does not render prosecution case false when supported by medical and circumstantial evidence - Appeals Dismissed

Law Point : Conviction can be based on medical and scientific evidence even if victim turns hostile - Hostility of witnesses does not vitiate prosecution when independent corroboration establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 376
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 313

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[6] - SARFAESI IN NAGALAND

2026(1)WES6

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Gauhati High Court]

(Hon'ble Dipankar Datta ; Aravind Kumar, J.)

Civil Appeal No 6492 of 2024, dated 16-12-2025

North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd (Nedfi) vs. L Doulo Builders and Suppliers Co Pvt Ltd

Constitution of India Art. 371A - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Sec. 13, Sec. 2, Sec. 14, Sec. 35, Sec. 17 - SARFAESI in Nagaland - Financial corporation advanced loan for cold storage project in Nagaland secured by village council guarantee - Borrower defaulted and possession taken under SARFAESI - High Court quashed action citing protection of tribal land under Article 371A - Apex court held SARFAESI applies to Nagaland and Article 371A does not exempt enforcement against secured assets pledged for commercial purposes - Possession and recovery proceedings restored - Appeal Allowed

Law Point : Article 371A does not restrict application of central financial recovery laws like SARFAESI where property is used for commercial enterprise and voluntarily charged as security - Statutory remedies under SARFAESI prevail over local customary law protections

Acts Referred:

Constitution of India Art. 371A
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Sec. 13, Sec. 2, Sec. 14, Sec. 35, Sec. 17

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[7] - MURDER ACQUITTAL

2026(1)WES7

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Allahabad High Court]

(Hon'ble K Vinod Chandran ; N V Anjaria, J.)

Criminal Appeal No 809 of 2014, dated 16-12-2025

Raj Pal Singh vs. Rajveer & Ors

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 34, Sec. 302, Sec. 307 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 313 - Murder Acquittal - Complainant appealed against acquittal of accused in murder of his son - Trial court convicted respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC - High Court reversed conviction - Appellant challenged acquittal - Evidence showed inconsistencies in witnesses' accounts regarding weapons, sequence of events, and medical proof - High Court observed improbability of dragging deceased by aged and ill accused - Recovery of weapon not corroborated by ballistic evidence - Delay and contradictions in complaint noticed - Apex Court held High Court's appreciation of evidence reasonable and based on material discrepancies - Presumption of innocence strengthened after acquittal - No compelling reason to interfere with acquittal - Acquittal confirmed - Appeal Dismissed

Law Point : Interference with acquittal requires strong and cogent reasons as presumption of innocence stands reinforced; appellate court should not substitute its view unless trial findings are manifestly perverse

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 34, Sec. 302, Sec. 307
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 313

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[8] - AUCTION SALE VALIDITY

2026(1)WES8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Hon'ble J B Pardiwala ; R Mahadevan, J.)

Civil Appeal No 14761 of 2025, dated 15-12-2025

Danesh Singh & Ors vs. Har Pyari (Dead)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 21R. 58, Or. 21R. 54, Or. 21R. 101, Or. 21R. 99, Or. 21R. 89, Or. 21R. 90, Or. 21R. 102, Or. 6R. 4, Or. 21R. 92, Or. 21R. 103, Sec. 47, Or. 21R. 100, Or. 21R. 66, Or. 6R. 2 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 58, Sec. 52 - Limitation Act, 1963 Art. 128, Art. 127 - Auction Sale Validity - Appeal concerned validity of auction sale conducted in execution of mortgage decree - Plaintiffs purchased portion of mortgaged property before decree and later sought declaration that auction sale void - Lower courts held auction illegal for want of notice and participation of disqualified bidders - Supreme Court held sale not hit by lis pendens as purchase preceded decree but sale proceedings vitiated by fraud and procedural irregularities - It ruled bona fide purchasers deprived of property without notice entitled to independent remedy - Decree upholding invalidity of auction affirmed - Appeal Dismissed

Law Point : Bona fide transferee prior to decree can challenge auction sale obtained by fraud or without notice; separate civil suit maintainable despite execution bar under Sec.47 CPC when fraud vitiates proceedings

Acts Referred:

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[9] - FAULTY INVESTIGATION AND CONVICTION

2026(1)WES9

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Gujarat High Court]

(Hon'ble Vikram Nath ; Sandeep Mehta, J.)

Criminal Appeal No 2973 of 2023, dated 15-12-2025

Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) vs. State of Gujarat

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 363 - Sec. 201 - Sec. 376; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 161 - Sec. 313; Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 27; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sec. 3 - Sec. 4 - Faulty Investigation and Conviction - Accused convicted for sexual assault and murder of minor child - Evidence rested entirely on circumstantial proof including last seen theory and recoveries - Supreme Court found grave inconsistencies and contradictions in witnesses' conduct and statements - Investigation described as flawed and insensitive - Testimonies unreliable and recoveries doubtful - Chain of circumstances incomplete to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction held unsafe and unsustainable - Emphasis laid on duty of investigators and courts to preserve fairness and accuracy in sensitive cases - Conviction set aside - Appeal Allowed

Law Point : Conviction cannot rest on speculative or unreliable circumstantial evidence; fair and thorough investigation is essential to uphold justice and protect rights of both victim and accused.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 363, Sec. 201, Sec. 376
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 161, Sec. 313
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 27
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sec. 4, Sec. 3

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[10] - DOWRY DEATH

2026(1)WES10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Allahabad High Court]

(Hon'ble Sanjay Karol ; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.)

Criminal Appeal No 132 of 2017, 133 of 2017, dated 15-12-2025

State of U P vs. Ajmal Beg Etc

Constitution of India Art. 14 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 304B, Sec. 498A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 161, Sec. 313, Sec. 374 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Sec. 8B, Sec. 2, Sec. 4, Sec. 3 - Dowry Death - State preferred appeal against acquittal of accused charged under Sec. 304B and Sec. 498A IPC and Sec. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Deceased subjected to repeated demands for colour television, motorcycle and money by husband and his family - Evidence of witnesses consistent regarding harassment and demand - Trial Court convicted husband and mother-in-law - High Court acquitted on grounds of discrepancies in evidence - Supreme Court held minor inconsistencies do not destroy prosecution case - Demand for dowry and cruelty soon before death proved beyond reasonable doubt - Presumption under Sec. 113B Evidence Act applicable - Failure of accused to rebut presumption - High Court erred in disbelieving credible witnesses - Conviction by Trial Court restored - Dowry recognized as grave constitutional and social evil violating gender equality under Art. 14 - Appeals Allowed

Law Point : Once prosecution proves cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before death, presumption under Sec. 113B of Evidence Act arises against accused and unless rebutted, conviction under Sec. 304B IPC stands justified; minor discrepancies in witness statements cannot outweigh consistent and credible evidence of dowry demand and cruelty

Acts Referred:

Constitution of India Art. 14
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 304B, Sec. 498A
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 161, Sec. 313, Sec. 374
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Sec. 8B, Sec. 2, Sec. 4, Sec. 3

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[11] - MEMBERSHIP RIGHTS

2026(1)WES11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Hon'ble Amit Borkar, J.)

Writ Petition No. 10949 of 2025, 10950 of 2025, 10951 of 2025, 10952 of 2025, dated 24-12-2025

Shivraj Nagar Co-op Hsg Soc Ltd vs. Mextech Realty Pvt Ltd ,; Dy Registrar, Co-operative Societies; Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies

Contract Act, 1872 Sec. 23 - Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 Sec. 22 - Sec. 23 - Sec. 28 - Sec. 154B - Membership Rights - Petitions arose from challenge to conferment of membership based on purchase of multiple residential units - Society objected on ground of excessive shareholding and public policy - Authorities granted membership treating applications as fresh - Argument advanced that restriction on holding shares stood violated and transactions stood unlawful - Counter view taken that ownership of units and holding of shares remained distinct legal concepts - Legislative framework governing housing societies excluded applicability of shareholding restriction - Fresh applications submitted after statutory amendment governed by new regime - Earlier proceedings lacked finality and stood reopened - Compliance with statutory conditions remained possible - Statutory intent reflected exclusion of restrictive provision for housing societies - No illegality found in orders granting membership - Grounds raised lacked merit under prevailing law - Petition Dismissed

Law Point : Restriction on holding shares under co-operative law does not bar ownership of residential units and stands excluded for housing societies after statutory amendment governing such societies

Acts Referred:

Contract Act, 1872 Sec. 23
Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 Sec. 22, Sec. 23, Sec. 28, Sec. 154B

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[12] - JUDICIAL EXAMINATION

2026(1)WES12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Hon'ble Shree Chandrashekhar ; Gautam A Ankhad, J.)

Writ Petition No. 11058 of 2025, 11059 of 2025, 11198 of 2025, 11753 of 2025, dated 24-12-2025

Kartiki Awantika; Shruti Hemant Wade; Patil Naresh Dongar; Amit Arun Londhe vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors

Constitution of India Art. 21, Art. 19, Art. 14 - Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 Rule 6 - Judicial Examination - Petitioners sought supply and re-evaluation of answer sheets for Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Examination - Claimed denial of answer sheets under RTI arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 - Alleged mechanical marking and unfair evaluation - Respondent contended moderation permissible only within fixed range and process followed as per rules - Court held candidates have right to transparency in evaluation process - Refusal to provide evaluated answer sheets amounts to violation of fundamental rights - Direction issued to authority to allow inspection and furnish copies of answer books - Court declined re-evaluation but permitted moderation if found necessary under rules - Petition Partly Allowed

Law Point : Candidates are entitled to access their evaluated answer sheets under Article 19(1)(a) - refusal violates transparency and fairness principles though re-evaluation lies within limited statutory discretion.

Acts Referred:

Constitution of India Art. 21, Art. 19, Art. 14
Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 Rule 6

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[13] - LABOUR REGULARIZATION

2026(1)WES13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Hon'ble G S Kulkarni ; Aarti Sathe, J.)

Letters Patent Appeal; Writ Petition No 233 of 2008, 207 of 2008, 209 of 2008, 214 of 2008, 235 of 2008, 215 of 2008, 236 of 2008, 237 of 2008, 238 of 2008, 239 of 2008, 240 of 2008, 241 of 2008, 242 of 2008, 243 of 2008, 244 of 2008, 245 of 2008, 246 of 2008, 247 of 2008, 248 of 2008, 249 of 2008, 250 of 2008, 251 of 2008, 252 of 2008, 253 of 2008, 254 of 2008, 255 of 2008, 256 of 2008, 257 of 2008, 258 of 2008, 259 of 2008, 234 of 2008, 275 of 2008, 260 of 2008, 261 of 2008, 262 of 2008, 263 of 2008, 264 of 2008, 265 of 2008, 266 of 2008, 282 of 2008, 268 of 2008, 269 of 2008, 270 of 2008, 271 of 2008, 272 of 2008, 289 of 2008, 290 of 2008, 291 of 2008, 295 of 2008, 296 of 2008, 297 of 2008, 298 of 2008, 299 of 2008, 300 of 2008, 301 of 2008, 302 of 2008; 436 of 2001, 7436 of 2000, 446 of 2001, 448 of 2001, 7656 of 2000, 7453 of 2000, 7445 of 2000, 421 of 2001, 418 of 2001, 7663 of 2000, 7665 of 2000, 7666 of 2000, 7658 of 2000, 7659 of 2000, 7664 of 2000, 413 of 2001, 7441 of 2000, 428 of 2001, 7437 of 2000, 458 of 2001, 432 of 2001, 454 of 2001, 440 of 2001, 7452 of 2000, 7667 of 2000, 7444 of 2000, 434 of 2001, 453 of 2001, 412 of 2001, 416 of 2001, 439 of 2001, 426 of 2001, 7455 of 2000, 7451 of 2000, 7440 of 2000, 414 of 2001, 427 of 2001, 7430 of 2000, 7448 of 2000, 435 of 2001, 7428 of 2000, 7655 of 2000, 7671 of 2000, 420 of 2001, 7439 of 2000, 7438 of 2000, 455 of 2001, 7672 of 2000, 7661 of 2000, 7657 of 2000, 7660 of 2000, 7446 of 2000, 425 of 2001, 7435 of 2000, 429 of 2001, 7662 of 2000, dated 24-12-2025

Divisional Manager, Forest Development Corporation, Nashik vs. Budha Pandu Mondhe; Deoram S Sunwate and Anr ; Shivaji Vaman Sabale; Chandar Bhorji Mirka; Kalu Ramji Khade; Deoram Sitaram Jadhav; Pandurang Rajaram Chaudhary; Sitaram Vitthal Raut; Tulashiram Rawaji Khadam;

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Sec. 25B, Sec. 2 - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Sec. 28 - Labour Regularization - Appeals filed against concurrent findings of Industrial Court and Single Judge granting permanency to daily wage watchmen - Workmen appointed between years under different schemes claimed continuous service of more than two hundred forty days each year - Industrial Court found employer engaged in unfair labour practice by denying regularization despite perennial work - Appellant contended employees were temporary under government schemes and no sanctioned posts existed - Court noted Corporation was separate legal entity performing continuous forestry work and respondents served for long period without break - Observing relationship of employer and employee existed and work was perennial, Court held respondents entitled to regular status - Plea of lack of funds and posts rejected - Permanency benefits confirmed - Appeal Dismissed

Law Point : Continuous employment exceeding two hundred forty days yearly in perennial work entitles workmen to regularization and benefits; denial amounts to unfair labour practice.

Acts Referred:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Sec. 25B, Sec. 2
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Sec. 28

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[14] - JURISDICTION ISSUE

2026(1)WES14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Hon'ble Amit Borkar, J.)

Review Petition; Writ Petition No. 184 of 2025; 2679 of 2023, dated 23-12-2025

Amritlal P Shah vs. TJSB Sahakari Bank Limited; A S Construction; Surendra Pratap M Yadav; Mattuk Narayan A Tiwari; Sunita P Mishra

Maharashtra Co Operative Societies Act, 1960 Sec. 163, Sec. 91 - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 Sec. 56, Sec. 2, Sec. 5, Sec. 34 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Sec. 2 - Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Sec. 17, Sec. 1, Sec. 2, Sec. 31, Sec. 18 - Jurisdiction Issue - Review sought reconsideration of earlier writ decision restoring money decree in favor of cooperative bank - Ground urged concerned jurisdiction of cooperative forum vis a vis debt recovery mechanism under central legislation - Facts undisputed regarding loan transactions and recovery proceedings initiated before cooperative forum - Observation recorded existence of serious legal controversy on whether cooperative banks fall within definition of bank for exclusive recovery before specialized tribunal - Conflicting interpretations and constitutional interplay noticed - Issue involved effect of central enactment on state recovery remedy and extent of legislative competence - Determination required authoritative resolution - Matter found unsuitable for summary adjudication in review jurisdiction - Proper course required reference to larger bench - Review not decided on merits but procedural direction issued - Matter Referred to larger Bench

Law Point : When substantial jurisdictional conflict and constitutional questions arise review jurisdiction may yield to reference to larger bench instead of final determination

Acts Referred:

Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 Sec. 163, Sec. 91
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 Sec. 56, Sec. 2, Sec. 5, Sec. 34
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Sec. 2
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Sec. 17, Sec. 1, Sec. 2, Sec. 31, Sec. 18

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[15] - EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

2026(1)WES15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Hon'ble Sandeep V Marne, J.)

Writ Petition No. 3766 of 2024, dated 23-12-2025

Kumar Dashrath Kamble vs. Bombay Hospital

Constitution of India Art. 16, Art. 14 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Sec. 18, Sec. 2 - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Sec. 28 - Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 Sec. 2, Sec. 3 - Employment Discrimination - Petition challenged Industrial Court order dismissing complaint of workman seeking permanency from earlier period - Workman engaged as sweeper claimed denial of permanency due to HIV positive status though similarly placed workers regularised - Hospital justified action under settlement requiring medical fitness - Court found that denial of permanency solely on basis of HIV positive status constituted discrimination violating Articles 14 and 16 and provisions of HIV-AIDS Act - Condition of medical fitness used to deny permanency not legally sustainable - Court observed that petitioner performed duties continuously and discrimination on health ground impermissible - Industrial Court failed to appreciate legal protection under HIV-AIDS Act - Granting permanency from relevant date with consequential benefits - Hospital directed to treat petitioner as permanent employee - Petition Allowed

Law Point : Denial of employment benefits or permanency on ground of HIV positive status amounts to discrimination and violates equality provisions and statutory protection under HIV-AIDS Act.

Acts Referred:

Constitution of India Art. 16, Art. 14
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Sec. 18, Sec. 2
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Sec. 28
Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 Sec. 2, Sec. 3

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[16] - DEEMED CONVEYANCE

2026(1)WES16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Hon'ble Firdosh P Pooniwalla, J.)

Writ Petition (L) No. 35377 of 2025, dated 23-12-2025

Velentine Properties Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors

Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of The Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 Sec. 5A, Sec. 11 - Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of The Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Rules, 1964 Rule 9 - Deemed Conveyance - Petition filed challenging order granting unilateral deemed conveyance in favour of society under statutory provisions - Petitioner being promoter contended that application by society was premature as agreements provided conveyance only after full development - Contention raised that petitioner had shown willingness to convey and application not maintainable under statutory provisions - Society opposed stating that conveyance was delayed and petitioner retained part of land without justification - Authority granted conveyance based on architect's report rejecting retention claim - Court held that contractual clauses cannot override statutory rule mandating conveyance within prescribed period - Found that authority erred in not appointing independent architect where multiple societies existed and dispute about land measurement persisted - Order granting conveyance set aside and matter remanded to competent authority to appoint architect and decide afresh after report - Operation of order stayed temporarily - Matter Remanded

Law Point : Contractual clause postponing conveyance cannot override statutory mandate under Rule 9 of MOFA Rules and competent authority must appoint architect to determine exact area before granting deemed conveyance

Acts Referred:

Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of The Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 Sec. 5A, Sec. 11
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of The Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Rules, 1964 Rule 9

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[17] - CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

2026(1)WES17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Hon'ble Shree Chandrashekhar ; Gautam A Ankhad, J.)

Criminal Public Interest Litigation; Interim Application (St) No 5 of 2023; 6219 of 2024, 4133 of 2023, dated 22-12-2025

Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 156 - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Sec. 63 - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 Sec. 44A - Criminal Investigation - Petitioner sought direction for registration of criminal case and investigation by central agency alleging irregularities in land transactions and approvals related to development project - He had earlier filed multiple public interest litigations on same subject which were dismissed - Court observed repeated petitions on identical issues cannot be entertained and petitioner had statutory remedies under criminal procedure code for redress through police or magistrate - Exercise of writ jurisdiction for directing investigation reserved for exceptional cases of manifest injustice - No new material or exceptional circumstance shown - Petition Dismissed

Law Point : Repeated public interest petitions seeking criminal investigation on same cause not maintainable when statutory remedies exist; writ jurisdiction for directing CBI inquiry exercised only in rare exceptional cases

Acts Referred:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 156
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Sec. 63
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 Sec. 44A

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[18] - LEAVE AND LICENSE

2026(1)WES18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Hon'ble Madhav J Jamdar, J.)

Writ Petition No 16995 of 2025, dated 20-12-2025

D G M & A Operated S A B English Medium School Through Principal Ashwini Harish Suryawanshi vs. Shivaji Laxman Bhamare

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Sec. 44, Sec. 41, Sec. 24, Sec. 42 - Leave and License - Petition challenged eviction order under Sec. 24 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act - Premises taken on leave and license specifically for running English Medium School - Competent Authority directed eviction and double license fee - Court observed that Sec. 24 applies only to premises given for residence - Premises used for commercial purpose like school not covered by Sec. 24 - Therefore Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to order eviction - Orders of Competent Authority and Appellate Authority set aside - Matter remanded to civil forum to decide - Petition Allowed

Law Point : Proceedings under Sec. 24 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act maintainable only for premises licensed for residence - Premises licensed for commercial purpose fall outside jurisdiction of Competent Authority.

Acts Referred:

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Sec. 44, Sec. 41, Sec. 24, Sec. 42

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[19] - REDEVELOPMENT JURISDICTION

2026(1)WES19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Hon'ble Amit Borkar, J.)

Writ Petition No. 8889 of 2024, dated 19-12-2025

Bank of India Staff Panchsheel Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. Jitendra Kumar Jani; Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies; Vikas R Korade

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 7R. 11 - Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 Sec. 91, Sec. 2, Sec. 154B - Redevelopment Jurisdiction - Petition challenged order of Co-operative Appellate Court rejecting application under Order VII Rule 11 for dismissal of proceedings on redevelopment issue - Petitioner contended that redevelopment not covered by society's bye laws and therefore not within Co-operative Court jurisdiction - Respondent argued that general body resolutions touching society's affairs fall within Sec.91 - Court observed that Sec.154B(1)(17) only enables but does not mandate inclusion of redevelopment in housing society's business - Bye laws not amended automatically by 2019 Amendment - Redevelopment by developer includes elements beyond membership activities - Dispute essentially concerns conduct of general body and management decisions - Such disputes fall under Sec.91 and can be tried by Co-operative Court - Hence application under Order VII Rule 11 rightly rejected - Writ Petition lacks merit - Petition Dismissed

Law Point : Redevelopment matters may fall within Co-operative Court's jurisdiction under Sec.91 if they involve conduct or management of society, but amended definition of housing society under Sec.154B does not by itself expand a society's business unless bye laws are amended accordingly.

Acts Referred:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 7R. 11
Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 Sec. 91, Sec. 2, Sec. 154B

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[20] - REPRESENTATION RIGHT

2026(1)WES20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Hon'ble Amit Borkar, J.)

Writ Petition No. 1457 of 2015, 9332 of 2015, dated 19-12-2025

Best Workers Union; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Best Undertaking; Best Jagrut Kamgar Sanghatana; Best Workers Union

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Sec. 21, Sec. 32, Sec. 20, Sec. 30 - Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 Sec. 32, Sec. 33A, Sec. 30, Sec. 33, Sec. 27A - Representation Right - Dispute concerned locus of unrecognised union to prosecute complaint of collective nature before Labour Court - Recognised union claimed exclusive right under MIR Act - Industrial Court permitted unrecognised union to act as complainant - Petitioner urged exclusive domain of representative union under Secs.30 and 33A of MIR Act - Respondent contended complaint related to discharge and termination matters under Item 1 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act permitting any union to represent employees - Court examined statutory scheme and held termination related disputes constitute individual grievances distinct from collective bargaining - For such matters, appearance not confined to recognised union - Industrial Court correctly permitted participation of unrecognised union - Petitions Dismissed

Law Point : Under MRTU & PULP Act and MIR Act, recognised union holds exclusive representation for collective issues under Items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV, but in termination disputes under Item 1, even unrecognised unions can represent employees.

Acts Referred:

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Sec. 21, Sec. 32, Sec. 20, Sec. 30
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 Sec. 32, Sec. 33A, Sec. 30, Sec. 33, Sec. 27A

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[21] - SALE PERMISSION CANCELLATION

2026(1)WES21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Hon'ble Amit Borkar, J.)

Writ Petition No. 9384 of 2014, dated 19-12-2025

Uday Bhanudas Gujar vs. Madan Yeshwant Diwan; Alka @ Mithila Madan Diwan; Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Pune; Sub Divisional Officer, Bhor Division,; Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division; Sah Ebr Ao Tatyaba Barke

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 Sec. 248, Sec. 247 - Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 Sec. 3, Sec. 12 - Sale Permission Cancellation - Challenge raised against Divisional Commissioner's order revoking sale permission earlier granted under Rehabilitation Act - Permission acted upon and registered sale deed executed - Appeal entertained without condoning delay and beyond jurisdiction - Authorities under Rehabilitation Act had no power to cancel once transaction completed - Remedy lay only through civil court - Commissioner acted without jurisdiction and contrary to statute - Permission granted validly - Order cancelling permission quashed - Possession and title of petitioner protected - Directions issued restoring mutation entries - Rule made absolute - Petition Allowed

Law Point : Once statutory permission for transfer under Rehabilitation Act is acted upon by registered sale, higher authority lacks jurisdiction to cancel it; only civil court may adjudicate competing title claims.

Acts Referred:

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 Sec. 248, Sec. 247
Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 Sec. 3, Sec. 12

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[22] - GRAM PANCHAYAT DISSOLUTION

2026(1)WES22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Nagpur Bench]

(Hon'ble Prafulla S Khubalkar, J.)

Writ Petition No 3116 of 2025, dated 19-12-2025

Sarita Rajesh Pathre; Keshav Bhaurao Vidhale; Karuna Vilas Ingle vs. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division; Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad; Secretary, Village Panchayat Jawala-shahapur; Sheshrao Yadavrao Ingole; Nandkishore Digambarrao Thakre; Akshay Suni

Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 Sec. 145 - Gram Panchayat Dissolution - Petition challenged order dissolving gram panchayat due to resignation of majority members - Remaining members continued working smoothly and performing statutory duties - Report of chief executive officer recommended holding elections for vacant posts and found no irregularity in administration - Divisional commissioner ignored report and dissolved body mechanically - Law under Section 145(1-A) confers discretion and provision is directory requiring consideration of factual circumstances and hearing of existing members before dissolution - Court held that resignation of majority members alone not sufficient to dissolve functioning panchayat and remaining members have right to complete tenure - Absence of material showing incapacity or misconduct renders dissolution unjustified - Order quashed and panchayat restored. - Petition Allowed

Law Point : Dissolution under Section 145(1-A) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act cannot be automatic upon majority resignation; authority must assess functionality and hear remaining members.

Acts Referred:

Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 Sec. 145

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[23] - COMPENSATION FOR LAND UTILISED

2026(1)WES23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Hon'ble Manish Pitale ; Manjusha Deshpande, J.)

Writ Petition No 1239 of 2002, dated 03-12-2025

Sha Vijay Anandrao Sawant; Rekha Vijay Sawant; Mrutunjay Vijay Sawant; Madhuri Vinod Ithape; Abhijit Madhukar Sawant; Amol Madhukar Sawant vs. Baramati Nagar Parishad, Baramati; Assistant Director, Town Planning & Value Fixation Department; Regional Director, Town Planning; State of Maharashtra

Constitution of India Art. 300A - Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 Sec. 330 - Compensation for Land Utilised - Land of petitioner utilised by Municipal Council for road construction without compensation - Council relied on layout condition and rule permitting nominal payment of Re.1 - Petitioner claimed violation of right to property under Article 300A - Court observed deprivation of property without fair compensation contrary to constitutional guarantee - Regulation permitting token payment contrary to law and unenforceable - Municipal Council directed to determine market value and pay compensation within fixed time - Petition Allowed with direction for payment of compensation

Law Point : Article 300A mandates payment of just and fair compensation when property of individual is taken for public purpose; municipal regulation authorising nominal payment without acquisition is unconstitutional

Acts Referred:

Constitution of India Art. 300A
Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 Sec. 330

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[24] - POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTIONS

2026(1)WES24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Aurangabad Bench]

(Hon'ble Vibha Kankanwadi ; Hiten S Venegavkar, J.)

Writ Petition No 14417 of 2025, 14418 of 2025, 14419 of 2025, 14370 of 2025, 14373 of 2025, 14376 of 2025, 14380 of 2025, 14420 of 2025, dated 02-12-2025

Vinod Pundlikrao Chinchalkar; Sunita W/o Manmohan Baheti; Sachin S/o Vithal Dagdu; Bajarang S/o Bhavsing Limbore; Alkabai W/o Gopichand Pardeshi; Chandan S/o Basavraj Patil; Hasnoddin Khudboddin Katyare; Parag Shivaji Sa vs. State of Maharashtra; State Election Commission; Collector, District Collector Office, Nanded; Tahsildar/returning Officer, Bhokar; Collector, Hingoli,; Sub Divisional Officer and Election Officer; District Collector, Co

Constitution of India Art. 243ZA - Art. 226 - Art. 243K - Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules, 1966 Rule 4 - Rule 8 - Postponement Of Elections - Group of petitions challenged postponement of municipal elections by State Election Commission on ground of delayed appeal decisions in nomination process - Petitioners contended that last-minute postponement lacked justification and violated constitutional discipline - Commission defended action citing power under Art. 243K and 243ZA to ensure fairness and equal opportunity - Court observed postponement just before polling without administrative foresight undermines sanctity of electoral process - Premature declaration of partial results may influence voters in postponed constituencies - Directed uniform declaration of results after completion of all elections - Found Commission's decision arbitrary and disproportionate - Petitions partly allowed with direction to conduct and declare results uniformly - Petitions partly Allowed

Law Point : Powers of Election Commission under Art. 243K and 243ZA are not absolute-postponement of elections must be justified by exceptional circumstances and exercised with transparency to preserve fairness and equal opportunity in electoral process

Acts Referred:

Constitution of India Art. 243ZA, Art. 226, Art. 243K
Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules, 1966 Rule 4, Rule 8

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

[25] - UNEARNED INCOME DEMAND

2026(1)WES25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Hon'ble Kamal Khata, J.)

Writ Petition No 362 of 2015, dated 01-12-2025

Tata Communications Limited vs. State of Maharashtra; Additional Commissioner Konkan Division; Collector, Mumbai Suburban District; Tahsildar (Revenue), Andheri; Government of Maharashtra

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 54 - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 Sec. 19, Sec. 168, Sec. 64, Sec. 2, Sec. 23, Sec. 37, Sec. 165, Sec. 31, Sec. 12 - Unearned Income Demand - Tata Communications challenged revenue orders directing payment of unearned income alleging transfer of land allotted to erstwhile VSNL without government permission - Land initially allotted to government department OCS later managed by VSNL and renamed Tata Communications after disinvestment - Authorities held that change in shareholding and control amounted to transfer violating allotment conditions - Petitioner contended that change of name and shareholding not transfer under law and no conveyance executed - Also alleged violation of natural justice and lack of reasons - Court held that corporate change of name does not constitute transfer under Sec.54 of Transfer of Property Act and authorities erred by treating disinvestment as transfer of immovable property - Found that impugned orders based on grounds absent in show cause notice and violative of natural justice - Orders quashed and demand set aside - Petition Allowed

Law Point : Change in shareholding or corporate name does not constitute transfer of immovable property-Demand of unearned income without notice or registered conveyance violates natural justice and provisions of Transfer of Property Act.

Acts Referred:

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 54
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 Sec. 19, Sec. 168, Sec. 64, Sec. 2, Sec. 23, Sec. 37, Sec. 165, Sec. 31, Sec. 12

To View or Print Full Judgement: Click Here

IMPORTANT

Although every care has been taken to avoid errors or omissions, this publication is being sold on the condition and understanding that information given in this Magazine is merely for reference and must not be taken as having authority of or binding in any way on the Authors, Editors, Publishers and sellers who do not owe any responsibility for any damage or loss to any person, a purchaser of this publication or nor, for the result of any action taken on the basis of this work. The publishers shall be highly obliged if mistakes are brought to their notice for carrying out corrections.

Published by:

Amit Nanda

for Current Law Solutions

Gr. Floor, Karanjia Building, 651 JSS Road, Marine Lines (E), Mumbai 400 002

Tel:- 09323540291

E-Mail: jainabook@gmail.com. Website: www.currentpublications.com

------------------