IN THE judgment of the case –Shri John Joseph v. Union of India & two others, delivered on December 16, 2024, Justice M S Karnik and Justice Nivedita P Mehta at the Bombay High Court at Goa, have referred to settled principle of law that a litigant who approaches the Court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time and wakes up from deep slumber ought not to be granted the relief as “delay defeats equity”...

The expectation from the Licencing Authority or the Authority granting authorisation is to act fairly and to adopt a procedure, which can be said to be ‘fairplay in action’. In one of the judgements, the Supreme Court has held that due observance of the statutory obligations as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation fair treatment. ..

IN THE judgement of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) – Rajneesh Kumar & Another v. Ved Prakash, delivered on November 21, 2024, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan have quoted an observation from its judgment of the case- Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation- (1971) 2 SCC 860, wherein the Supreme Court has declared that “the necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure that actions are commenced within a particular period, firstly to ..

In the facts and circumstances of this case, a strong action needs to be taken in order to maintain the faith of the litigant and the society at large. Provisions provide for a mechanism of dealing with cases of professional misconduct on the part of advocates. It also provides for an opportunity of hearing to both the sides to arrive at a conclusion, either way ..

THROUGH the judgement of the Income Tax Appeal in the case-The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Pune v. Dr Kasliwal Medical Care & Research Foundation, Solapur, delivered on October 21, 2024, Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla, at the Bombay High Court, have held that the clear position in law is, as has been decided by the Supreme Court in its decision of the case – Harshit Foundation Sehmalpur v. Commissioner of Income Tax-(2022)139 taxmann.com 55(All), that section 12AA(2) of the ..

IN THREE writ petitions, not registered yet and having only Stamp Nos.-Harpritsingh Bhupindersingh Hora, Vijay Shankarlal Lalwani, Sacin Suryakant Belagade and Sanjay Marutrao Ingawale, a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Justices Atul Chandurkar, Gauri Godse and Rajesh S Patil, has answered on September 30, 2024, a question referred to it, regarding the interpretation of section 142(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The order of reference containing the question formulated ..

IN THE judgement of the case – Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, delivered on September 20, 2024, Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Chandra Sharma, at the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with “certain sinister cabal of unscrupulous litigants and a coterie of their counsellors, who are always busy in taking undue advantage of the systemic lacunae and in misusing the process of law, in turn damaging the image of the Courts as also of the entire legal fraternity/legal profession.” ..

THROUGH the judgement of the case – The Deputy Commissioner of Police Wireless Division, Mumbai v. Shri Sanjay Govind Parab, delivered on September 6, 2024, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil, at the Bombay High Court have held that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has committed a grave error in holding the respondent –employee Police Head Constable Sanjay Govind Parab entitled to pay and allowances for the period of his unauthorised absence by treating his order of transfer, ..